Slashdot Mirror


The Private Outsourcing of US Intelligence Services

mrbluze writes "It appears that more and more of the data collection sanctioned by the US government is passed through the hands of private enterprise, Salon reports. 'Because of the cloak of secrecy thrown over the intelligence budgets, there is no way for the American public, or even much of Congress, to know how those contractors are getting the money, what they are doing with it, or how effectively they are using it. The explosion in outsourcing has taken place against a backdrop of intelligence failures for which the Bush administration has been hammered by critics, from Saddam Hussein's fictional weapons of mass destruction to abusive interrogations that have involved employees of private contractors operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Aftergood and other experts also warn that the lack of transparency creates conditions ripe for corruption.'"

256 comments

  1. I disagree with the article by 2.7182 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    There are 3 plurals of octopus: octopi, octopuses and octopodes.

    1. Re:I disagree with the article by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Actually, only octopuses is the correct plural. The other's are I believe greek and latin root extensions, or something.

      I could hijack a potentially popular first post to get my own unrelated comment higher up on the page than it would normally get, but instead I'll use the opportunity to open discussion on this recently encroaching phenomenon.... oh wait.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:I disagree with the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 3 plurals of octopus: octopi, octopuses and octopodes.
      If those moderating you are to be believed, there's a fourth: Octopic.
  2. Makes sense, doesn't it? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Well, we can't keep our data secure, so we thought, why bother?"

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Makes sense, doesn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If congress gives the President a blank check then he does have the executive authority to wage war without congressional oversight. Sure the military operations are subject to it, but contracts dolled out to KBR and Blackwater? Not after the money is released. This administration illustrates why the safeguards were the way they were, and the folly of undoing them. Because seriously, at the end of the day terrorism isn't any kind of threat. If it becomes a threat we just get to hold them hostage (only 1 habital planet, no where to run), and if they call our bluff, we get to wage a one sided world war iii. And that's the best kind.

    2. Re:Makes sense, doesn't it? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Power without control begs to be abused.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Glad I live in America by Joebert · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's when I read stories about messed up governments that make me glad I live in, damn.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Glad I live in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not defending this bullshit, but seriously, would you rather live in China, Venezuela, or Russia?

      My country good or bad, but my country.

      The nice thing is, we're about to hit a peak for this round of government incompetence and it's going to sour peoples stomachs on this style of governance for a long time to come. I think we're about to enter the clean up period, if we aren't already in the early stages of it now.

    2. Re:Glad I live in America by Joebert · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My country good or bad, but my country.
      Unless you're in politics, you just live here.
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    3. Re:Glad I live in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not defending this bullshit, but seriously, would you rather live in China, Venezuela, or Russia?

      At the moment, for me, in my situation? Yes.

      I'm an American that lives in China.

      Never had any problems over here.
      -I have a nice job that I like.
      -I walk 15 minutes to work.
      -I stop at the street vendor to buy a few beers on my way home.
      -I'm learning a language most Westerners don't know
      -I'm living in a country most Westerners will never see
      -I see movies on DVD before most Americans see them in the theater. :)

      Granted, living as an American in China, is different that living as a Chinese in China.

      But, for now, for me....

      Glad to be an American, and happy to live in China.

    4. Re:Glad I live in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm not defending this bullshit, but seriously, would you rather live in China, Venezuela, or Russia?"

      No, but I'd better live in Denmark, Finland or Norway.

    5. Re:Glad I live in America by Tickletaint · · Score: 0

      Denmark, home to the sort of racist right-wing radicalism that makes Tancredo look like Alexander Hamilton? No thanks. For all its flaws, America still does some things better than the Old World, multiculturalism being the prime example.

      --
      Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
    6. Re:Glad I live in America by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I've realized the US actually is more dedicated to the ideals/religion of capitalism than it is to its citizens. If somebody else can do the job better or cheaper, we admit defeat and they're welcome to our markets, or to simply move here. (Of course, the "true believers" will never, ever recognize any conflict between serving global economic utility vs. the best interest of US citizens).

      On one hand, this makes perfect sense: shouldn't everybody's opportunities depend on their merit instead of where they were born? On the other hand, why would somebody fight and die to protect what amounts to a big corporation which isn't loyal in return?

    7. Re:Glad I live in America by Joebert · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, why would somebody fight and die to protect what amounts to a big corporation which isn't loyal in return?

      We have the most effective marketing department in the world ?
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    8. Re:Glad I live in America by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The ability to take the best from an infinite number of cultures and removing the worst, while intergrating those people seamlessly into our society, is just one of the things that makes America great that the right is trying to destroy, along with jury trials, a classless society, and the moral high ground.

      Oh, and, apparently, a functioning military and intelligence community. What's going to happen when we say 'Okay, we're going to attack X' and all these private companies say 'No.'?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:Glad I live in America by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not defending this bullshit, but seriously, would you rather live in China, Venezuela, or Russia?

      My country good or bad, but my country. I believe the quote you are reaching for is, "My country, right or wrong!"

      Except, that's not the whole story. The actual quotation is really:
      "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
      --Carl Schurz
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    10. Re:Glad I live in America by amper · · Score: 1

      In the interests of fairness, it should be noted that the original misquoted quotation was from Stephen Decatur, and reads thusly:

      "Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!"

      and to elaborate, the British author G. K. Chesterson has also said:

      "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'"

    11. Re:Glad I live in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shouldn't everybody's opportunities depend on their merit instead of where they were born?


      Why should someone's genetic makeup and very early childhood - the predominant determinants of their merit, as the immutability of IQ has demonstrated - define their opportunities any more than any other factor over which they have no control or responsibility?

      I've excelled academically, I'm a "genius" by various standards, I'm happy getting involved in minute detail or looking at the big picture, and god knows I did little to deserve it. And I'm not going to be intellectually dishonest by trying to claim otherwise.
  4. Spies 'r Us by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Funny

    pay me to observe the posts of the notoriously secretive and suspected Al Quaida member Anonymous Coward.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Spies 'r Us by mpe · · Score: 1

      pay me to observe the posts of the notoriously secretive and suspected Al Quaida member Anonymous Coward.

      Unfortunatly they have run out of money. Looks like it was all given to an Australian firm run by Terry Wrist and Al Kyder.

    2. Re:Spies 'r Us by CommunistHamster · · Score: 1

      I knew Albert Kyder back in my college years. Nice lad, always had some "special flapjacks" to spare. Then he fell in with that bastard Terry. Never saw him again.

    3. Re:Spies 'r Us by dcam · · Score: 1

      For those who don't get the joke.

      --
      meh
  5. No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in Iraq by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "intelligence" failure was in the White House and it's coterie of civilian hit men sent to the Pentagon and the CIA. They simply chose crap, dismissed data they were told was garbage and ignored contrary facts presented to them. Analysts were quitting on principle; I remember them being interviewed in 1992. The PNACers used a hack, Tenet, to put a stamp on their fabricated package of dog poo. Then, after the lies hit the fan, they BLAMED THE INTEL THEY WERE TOLD WAS CRAP. Retch and repeat. And since the Niger documents were a known forgery even then, when do we ask the question: who commissioned the forgeries?

  6. Patrick Henry said it best by DreamerFi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. "

    1. Re:Patrick Henry said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      275 million a day people, and for what? A * war for freedom *?? Who's freedom??? KBR, Raytheon, Haliburton, and any other crony given U.S. taxpayer dollars (on no open bid contracts no less, what a crock of shit) is who and their FINANCIAL FREEDOM! Now, guess who's paying for it? Answer - U.S. Citizenry. Out Bushby & Darth Cheney, OUT - because all you do Mr. Bush & Mr. Cheney is line the pockets of those that put you in office at the expense of U.S. citizens fighting wars that have no basis in facts, only outright lies, and trying to make scapegoats of the intelligence community: Clue, you politicians are given reports by they only, it is up to you to triple if not quadruple check said "facts" before executing on them and you did not here. You created a convenient situation so you could profit by it. People of the United States: Why don't we see the bulk of the soldiery coming from those with politically connected wealthy families or families of those in the Senate, the Congress, or from the families of these companies fighting wars???? Because you as the American citizenry are expendable assets so these pigs can profit from your blood. The only good thing about this is the republican party are ruining themselves for decades in the distance. The bad thing is, democrats will take decades fixing this huge mess these jerks have put upon us. Aren't those in office supposed to give up any interests and profits gained by companies they used to work for????? I recall Jimmy Carter had to in his peanut plantations, so why hasn't "Darth Cheney"??????

      Our government and nation is in the hands of the greatest criminals of all time is why.

      Signed,

      AN UTTERLY DISGUSTED U.S. TAXPAYING CITIZEN (WHO FEELS LIKE HE LOOKS LIKE A FOOL TO THE REST OF THE WORLD BECAUSE OF THE CORRUPT LEADERSHIP OF HIS NATION IN THE 21st CENTURY)

    2. Re:Patrick Henry said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. "


      Hence why there is only one canditate running in BOTH parties that will remove the power from the government and put it back into the hands of the citizens.

      Ron Paul!
    3. Re:Patrick Henry said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what you guys said about Bush in 2000. Every 4-8 years there's a new snake oil salesman ready to take your vote for granted.

    4. Re:Patrick Henry said it best by Tickletaint · · Score: 1

      Hence why there is only one canditate running in BOTH parties that will remove the power from the government and put it back into the hands of the citizens. Ron Paul!
      And there was no difference between Bush and Gore either, am I right? Go fuck yourself.
      --
      Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
    5. Re:Patrick Henry said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, Ron Paul. The right wing's answer to Ralph Nader. I sincerely hope he wins the Republican primary, because that'd make the Dems unbeatable in 2008. Even Kucinich would be a shoo-in against that weirdo.

      The overprivileged adolescents who buy into libertarianism may fall for Mr. Paul's song and dance, true, but fortunately for the rest of us, they can't vote.

    6. Re:Patrick Henry said it best by acvh · · Score: 1

      since we have no idea what Gore would have done your question is irrelevant. for all we know Gore would have nuked Afghanistan after 9/11.

    7. Re:Patrick Henry said it best by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Ha, Ron Paul's the only person who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the general election as this war goes increasingly south. (No, it will not wrap around at the south pole. I suspect it will shoot off into space.)

      But there's no way he could win the primary. The Republicans are, at this point, down to their base, and their base is pro-getting-other-people-killed-for-no-reason. Anyone against throwing good Americans and Iraqis after bad cannot win.

      Ron Paul, if he got the nomination, might manage to suck all the sane Republicans back to their party. Of course, that 'if' is about as likely as saying 'if I win the lottery'.

      Although, at this point, I suspect it's too late, and the Republicans could run George Washington himself and still lose the general election. And considering they won't stop supporting the war, it's just going to get worse. By the time the primaries role around, we might be asking 'What if the Republicans had a primary and no one came?'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    8. Re:Patrick Henry said it best by Tickletaint · · Score: 1

      And for all we know so would have Nader, or Ron Paul for that matter, so it doesn't matter who gets elected? God, what a retarded attempt at an argument.

      --
      Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
  7. Given this administrations penchant for by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

    only listening to what they want to hear, I just got a business idea:


    Mr. Bush, Iran is responsible for all the problems in the world, and invading will cause no problems whatsoever. This report will cost you a billion dollars, thank you!

    1. Re:Given this administrations penchant for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's like Microsoft sponsored TCO reports that are always favorable to Microsoft. No intelligence contractor is going to hit the nail on the head when the customer clearly wants them to put a few dings around it.

      The nail is Saudi Arabia but the royals are personal friends and business associates of the Bush family.

    2. Re:Given this administrations penchant for by edwardpickman · · Score: 1

      Hey it's been working for Haliburton. You did forget one thing, make the check out to "CASH".

    3. Re:Given this administrations penchant for by beyondkaoru · · Score: 1

      don't forget halliburton

      --
      the privacy of one's mind is important.
      you do have something to hide.
  8. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I take your point about the White House only hearing what they want to hear and making it up when thats not the case. However political interference aside there was also a large failure on the part of the intelligence services to gather accurate information mainly due to few in place assets, regional antipathy to the US and the willingness of the intelligence services to pay for information which led to a glut of 'informants' spouting whatever made up crap they thought US agents would pay to hear.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  9. Spying by im+just+cannonfodder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the great thing about private companies doing the governments dirty work, is that there is no way to obtain the infomation, these secrets are just that. and this is new how? the Americans have been spying on the British the British on the Australians and the Australians on America for decades, each country is not allowed to spy on their own ppl but they can spy on another country and then share the information, and the biggest bonus is plausible deniability. http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/

    1. Re:Spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's not the only advantage. There are plenty of things that are outright illegal for our government to do... so what does an official in charge of an illegal initiative do? He hires someone else to do it.

      To a rational person, that's clearly an underhanded way of skirting the law. To politicians, it's just the way to do good business.

      Just about everything about the "War on Terror" is handled in this deceitful manner.

      Look at Guantanamo Bay. Its entire purpose of existence is to bypass the legal requirement of fair and speedy trials for detainees. Why is it in Cuba? It's there because Cuba is outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. It's not like the prisoners were captured in Guantanamo Bay, and they're being temporarily held there pending trial. Nope, they were captured halfway across the world, and shipped by the U.S. Army to an entirely unrelated country just to bypass the legal requirement of trials.

      Hell, the people running this charade should be afraid of fair trials -- especially for themselves.

    2. Re:Spying by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      IIRC, wasn't there also ships out in international waters that they were using to circumvent laws so they could torture people?

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    3. Re:Spying by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      It's different in that with a private company, they can spy on anyone. The only accountability would be the courts -- but if they are staffed with evangelicals and the Foundation loyalists, then nobody will call them to account.

      For instance, the outrage over the Total Information Awareness program put the kibosh on the government doing it. But, convicted felon Poindexter is starting it up in the private sector... notice all those databases that keep getting broken into? Notice the ho-hum reaction of the government that probably over 20% of us now have our Social Security and private info in the hands of God knows who?

      This stinks, and it is a great way to abuse Americans -- not provide security for us -- but against us.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  10. Re: i agree RULEZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are 0 judicial cases.

    Money RULEZ LOL!!!

  11. All these stories regarding the abuse.. by symbolic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...of information, not to mention the law, suggest that all of the secrecy can lead to corruption, as though it may happen. I'd argue that we're well past that point- the first sign that something is amiss is the unprecedented secrecy. The surveillance and other illegal acts are just window dressing.

    1. Re:All these stories regarding the abuse.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The surveillance and other illegal acts are just window dressing.

      As some slashdotters are so fond of pointing out time and time again, the Constitution only protects your rights from the government, corporations can do as they wish.

    2. Re:All these stories regarding the abuse.. by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 1

      As some slashdotters are so fond of pointing out time and time again, the Constitution only protects your rights from the government, corporations can do as they wish.
      But, if the corporation is hired by and acting on behalf of the government, then it is an agent of the government. Thus, the Constitution should apply to them. But no, that would make too much sense, so we can't have that here.
      --
      I feel like death on a soda cracker.
    3. Re:All these stories regarding the abuse.. by beyondkaoru · · Score: 1

      i'd argue that the corporation's employees would be able to do whatever it is ordinary citizens are able to do, but the government should not be allowed to hire them for unconstitutional purposes. if we allow the government to get away with hiring non-government folk to do unconstitutional things, then the government can do more than it should.

      --
      the privacy of one's mind is important.
      you do have something to hide.
    4. Re:All these stories regarding the abuse.. by Deagol · · Score: 1

      Last Thursday, the Diane Rehm show had a segment on this very topic, talking with the author of the book "Nation of Secrets". Show available in Real or Windows Media format. Very interesting topic.

    5. Re:All these stories regarding the abuse.. by symbolic · · Score: 1

      I watched this - thanks for posting the link.

  12. Sad when one cannot read without cookies by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1, Informative

    Salon cannot set a cookie on your browser

    In order to read Salon your browser and any security software you may be using must be set to allow Salon's cookies. Can you check to see if you have cookies disabled, or blocked from salon.com?

    Our help page can walk you through the steps necessary to enable cookies. Please check this and try again.

    If you feel you've received this message in error, please email us.

    Salon Technical Staff.

    --
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    1. Re:Sad when one cannot read without cookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So use telnet.

      Yes it's annoying that they require a cookie, OTOH a session cookie is nothing to be paranoid about.

      This is the cookie "SALON_=%2Fnews%2Ffeature%2F200", the link just points to a preamble. The full article requires you sign up for a day pass which I guess you aren't going to do anyway.

    2. Re:Sad when one cannot read without cookies by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Im not paranoid, Im lazy and dont want to have to change my settings for every tom dick and harry website that doesnt need to retain my session on the CLIENT SIDE, which is insecure anyway. Its so hard to save session info on a server isnt it not that there is any session or anything of use to save anyway. Its just bad design by the gimps in technology today.

      --
      http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    3. Re:Sad when one cannot read without cookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It appears to be a tracking cookie (rather than a session identifier) and I agree it's bad design.

      I tested the page in lynx and it worked fine, dunno if it's using heuristics or something but the cookie is only the tip of the iceberg. This is the page I get in firefox - I have javascript disabled.

      It's a more general problem, it's not just most web developers that are utterly clueless. Every industry is full of clueless people with no interest in what they're doing other than the paycheck at the end of the month.

    4. Re:Sad when one cannot read without cookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And tracking you by IP address is *more* secure? There are only two ways to track you. Client side token. IP address. A client token is MORE secure than IP address.

    5. Re:Sad when one cannot read without cookies by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

      insecure for THEM as I have 100% control over the client :) Clients should be treated as untrusted, period. Not that I care since they aren't my bank etc.

      --
      http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
  13. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently some people think that money can solve any problem.
    Naivete defined.

  14. Sr. Federal, the worth information is not gratis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your country is not your country. Your country is only the country of Bush.

    Sr. Federal, do you want the information of my mouth? $200 per answer!
    You must to agree this negotiated contract verbaly.

    No money, no information, bye bye. <- it's the forgotten american style!

  15. Domestic spying restrictions by Hellsbells · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sounds like an easy way around the CIA's domestic spying restrictions.

    Would a private contractor be subject to any of these restrictions?

  16. You guys need a new word. by Lavene · · Score: 4, Funny

    Every time the non-native English speakers (and USA hater) read something about the American intelligence it cracks us up. This is because we almost automatically interpret the word 'intelligence' as in 'intelligent'. So reading about outsourcing the American Intelligence really spurs some fun reactions, like "That's a good idea", "do they have any?", "Must be a simple task" and so on and so on.

    Really, we simply can not stop ridiculing you when you have words that sounds like a joke to the rest of the world.

    1. Re:You guys need a new word. by zig007 · · Score: 0

      Like when the words freedom and democracy are used? :-)

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    2. Re:You guys need a new word. by dwarfsoft · · Score: 1

      American Freedom and Democracy are also a joke to the rest of the world. Freedom because although your keeping on talking about it, you are still censored by your own governments, and this includes your media, not to mention you are also an extremely conservative country compared to many countries in the world. Democracy because although you try to spread it to the world, not all the world wants your kind of democracy, where money will buy you a presidency.

      I'll probably get modded down for above, but simply the reason we have so many countries is because not everybody agrees that a certain way of doing things is the right way. It just seems like the adamant stance that the American way of Freedom and Democracy are pushed on the rest of the world more than others, which is why people turn around and ridicule.

      I am by no means saying that any country is better than another, because here in Australia we are a lot like the Americans in terms of conservative views, government support of the war etc. Personally I prefer our Government system because having an idiot in power here is at least the fault of the people who voted for them, not due to the desire of that person to get into power by splashing their cash around.

      Seriously, if we all believed in the same things then we would be living under a Galactic Empire or something.

      --
      Cheers, Chris
    3. Re:You guys need a new word. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      having an idiot in power here is at least the fault of the people who voted for them, not due to the desire of that person to get into power by splashing their cash around.

      Stay tuned for President Turnbull - he wants to run the best government money can buy.

    4. Re:You guys need a new word. by zig007 · · Score: 1

      I was joking.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    5. Re:You guys need a new word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever I hear the word "European" I always check for a stain on on the front of my pants. Ah, bladder control.

  17. Corruption by pubjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One thing I've never understood about the USA is why Americans seem completely bind to the corruption within their own system. Example - Dick Cheney - until he became Vice President he was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton Energy Services, he is still a major stockholder. Then, the Iraq war happened, apparently a driving force behind that was Cheney. Do you guys not have the concept of "conflict of interest"?

    Is the problem that in school you have it drummed into you how great the USA is, and so don't see the problems? (Sorry I realise this post is a bit trollish, but it is a genuine question).

    1. Re:Corruption by codefungus · · Score: 1

      I agree. Watching Cheney and sometimes Bush run my country is almost like playing "stop hitting yourself" with a Quadriplegic.

      mmmm....tv

      --
      -- A cat is no trade for integrity!
    2. Re:Corruption by cfulmer · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're right -- it's trollish, mainly because it's wrong. Go to fact check here for the actual truth. Cheney has received some deferred compensation and turned over a bunch of his stock options to charity. Apart from that, he has no continuing interest.

    3. Re:Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not forgot that over half the US did NOT vote for the current administration. President Bush's approval ratings are around 30%.

      To say that we are "blind" to the corruption in our government is nonsense. What is true is that we tend to let our government get away with quite a bit because we have built up a high tolerance. Then again, I'm not sure any other country could say much different. Can you say that in your country, your government is not corrupt? Do the people light torches and march on the capital every time a politician does something illegal or immoral?

    4. Re:Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have, like almost everyone else, bought into the lie. Cheney has no more financial interest in the Haliburton corporation. When he became VP, he sold most of his interest and gave a lot of it to charity. However, you'll never believe that, because any lie, repeated enough, is believed to be the truth.

    5. Re:Corruption by zig007 · · Score: 0

      No interest?
      You mean like when he's not the vice president anymore, he won't go back?
      Oh come on.. Also, the info came from his attourney...

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    6. Re:Corruption by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Why are all the document links dead? Every PDF document they say they have is gone.

    7. Re:Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#Ties_with _Dick_Cheney

      To quote:

      In recent years the company has become the center of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $34 million[15]. As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[16] Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes.[16] He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (in Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education. The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," preventing Cheney from taking back the options at a later date.[16]
    8. Re:Corruption by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, you'll never believe that, because any lie, repeated enough, is believed to be the truth.

      Yep. Both sides use this, though I am more offended by the oft-repeated initial claims that the US knew where the Iraqi WMDs and WMD development equipment were when they are nowhere to be found, eventually Bush had to admit that nothing has been found to back his claims. There were other reasons to invade, but no one thought that those other reasons were worth the weighty risk being taken.

    9. Re:Corruption by radarjd · · Score: 1

      Is the problem that in school you have it drummed into you how great the USA is, and so don't see the problems? (Sorry I realise this post is a bit trollish, but it is a genuine question).

      I can only speak for myself here, so take it for no more than it's worth.

      Yes, I think people see the problems. However, there are a variety of issues that make it more complicated than the rest of the world sees.

      First, it seems like the US is the target of every other country or country's leaders, even (or especially) our allies. We get bashed (it seems -- this may be true and it may not be) regardless of what we do. Traveling abroad as an American, before or after 9-11, can be a trying thing. You get people who insult you for any number of reasons, and eventually the voices of the "rest of the world" just seem like shrill, jealous antagonists who will complain regardless of what you do. Those who don't travel get the same sense from those who do. It's considered conventional wisdom that if you go to France, the people are going to treat you like crap (again, this is conventional wisdom and not my experience) -- so the input of that country is just considered USA bashing. After a while, you feel a little contrary to the constant holier-than-thou attitude of other countries, and will act accordingly.

      Second, there are two political parties in the country with any chance of getting elected, which in many other countries is a foreign concept. Those parties are defined by a seemingly unflinchingly rigid set of issues, which may or may not conflict ideologically with each other, but are what the average voter gets to choose from. The Republicans (in theory) support lower taxes, are pro-life and pro-business, are against gun control, and support the death penalty. The Democrats (in theory) support social programs, are pro-choice, support environmental programs, are for gun control, and are against the death penalty. Both are often run by corrupt, elitist, extremely wealthy people who are out of touch with the general populace. For example, in the last election, John Kerry is a wealthy career politician, who selected a successful and also very wealthy trial lawyer as his running mate. George Bush is also a wealthy career politician, who selected a wealthy businessman with experience in the Federal government as his running mate. Those were the choices (and I chose neither, which is generally known as "throwing [my] vote away"). Had John Kerry been elected, it's almost certain that some interest would have caught his eye. (And if your gut response is "but that wouldn't have resulted in the deaths of thousands of people" then maybe you're right, but that's not the point.)

      My point is that there's corruption constantly, and people simply accept some level of it. For the most part, if it doesn't impact too many lives in the USA, then it's not considered that big of a deal. I would propose that that apathy is true for other countries as well, but those countries can't have quite the impact the US has.

      While I'm ranting, the third issue (I think) is that the US is really big and often citizens of other countries don't see that. We have 300 million citizens who have a huge range of issues which are important to them. We have the third largest land area of any country (stats taken from wikipedia page on USA). It's a really big place, and there are a lot of people to be kept happy. The problems that people see are the problems which impact them (or which they perceive to impact them). A defense contractor (and arguably the one with the most experience and ability to carry out the job) receiving a contract from the government is fairly low on the scale of importance until it impacts the average person in some way. People here tend not to travel as much as other countries, because (again) the US has its own great diversity of terrain and people and traveling abroad is often thought to be traveling into hostile territory, not to mention that it's expensive. So, yes, people in

    10. Re:Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are not blind to it.

      We all got a free ice cream cone if we voted for him.

      Us american like ice cream, you CANT turn down free ice cream.

      It was only our freedoms and government we traded for it, no big deal.

    11. Re:Corruption by king-manic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're right -- it's trollish, mainly because it's wrong. Go to fact check here for the actual truth. Cheney has received some deferred compensation and turned over a bunch of his stock options to charity. Apart from that, he has no continuing interest.

      Which is still complete bullshit. At the end of his term Haliburton will be paying Mr. Cheney plenty for speaking engagements or as a advisory. He's done what he can to defuse the direct appearance of corruption but still makes numerous choices to benefit this one organization at the expense of US tax payers and US future interests. Why were so many no bid contracts awarded to a company he had an association with? Both the president and the vice were major parts of this company. Why is so much money flowing in that direction. You basically have 2 Amoral corporate agents posing as your head of state and alternate.

      Congratulations on the rapidly declining dollar. A direct consequence of people like you who ignore the big picture and dwell on simple PR talking points and who feel overly invested in a political position that has not worked in your interest for a long time now. You international political and economic influence is waning and you continue to make decision in both government and corporately to expedite the fall of the American empire.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    12. Re:Corruption by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      For the most part, if it doesn't impact too many lives in the USA, then it's not considered that big of a deal.

      In the phrase, "Too much of a good thing", 'much' is functioning as a noun; this is why 'of' is needed to glue together the nouns 'much' and 'thing'.
      In almost all other phrases similar to this, 'much' is the only word after the 'too' that functions as a noun; other words are all adjectives. eg. "Too loud a noise", "Too small a quantity", "Too big a problem". Adjectives directly describe a noun (eg. 'loud noise', 'small quantity', 'big problem'), and DO NOT NEED the preposition 'of' to glue them with their noun! Incidentally, even 'much' can be used as an adjective, when it is describing an abstract noun: "Too much rain".

      Therefore, your phrase,
      "that big of a deal"
      should have read,
      "that big a deal"

      The 'of' is totally redundant and incorrect. Please do not ever use it UNLESS you are using the word 'much' with a non-abstract noun and need 'of' to glue them together.

    13. Re:Corruption by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Apart from that, he has no continuing interest.

      Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

    14. Re:Corruption by Guuge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As indicated by a couple of the replies to your post, one problem seems to be willful ignorance. Some people are willing to put absolute trust and faith in Cheney. They think it's just a spectacular coincidence that the administration is pouring vast amounts of our money into Halliburton. These are the people who believe that the Commander-in-Chief has military authority over all the population, and should never be disobeyed.

      We need the education to ensure that these people are always in the minority, and we need the vigilance to make sure their voices never drown out the majority ever again.

    15. Re:Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU STUPID LITTLE FUCKING CLUELESS SPELLING & GRAMMAR CHECKING A-HOLE!

      Who the fuck asked you for your stupid opinion, which doesn't matter & IS OFF-TOPIC: This is not the writing of last will & testament section here @ slashdot, nor is it legal correspondence, or an academic paper to be graded on... NOR IS IT THE ENGLISH COMPOSITION SECTION OF THIS SITE!

      By the way, douchebag: Do you have a phd in English? If so, prove it. Wouldn't matter if you did anyhow, as even folks from other countries speak this language just fine, & their words are easily understood & their meaning easily gathered via the context in which they are used!

      (And, about the phd in English, since you doubtless do NOT have one? If not, who the fuck are you to judge that guy's writing even IF you did?? Are you his teacher, his boss, or wife (or, anyone he ought to answer to & be accountable to))

      Hey - I understood it completely asswipe, & he made excellent points, & was very legible & easy to understand.

      You by comparison? Wrote all over the fucking page, for no good reasons since others understood his post & rated it highly in fact.

      Idiots like you? A WASTE OF LIFE! Contribute something on-topic for once, you mindless troll. I see so much of useless little puds like you online, & all you are is a little shit that ought to get his teeth punched right the FUCK in!

    16. Re:Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazi of grammar

    17. Re:Corruption by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      *Waves his arms* Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!! --there's your answer.

      First of all, yes, we *do* have it drummed into us that the US is the greatest country on earth. I, and a LOT of my friends apparently were paying some attention but then we also paid attention to the history of mistakes (Dread Scott still brings a tear to my eye when I think about it. How the hell are PEOPLE property....but I digress.) and downright idiocy that some Americans have committed. It's been oft quoted that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it, and I believe this is another example of this.

      Personally, the only answer that I've come up with is one that boils down to human nature. People generally will not change unless they are forced to do so, it's a question of comfort. I think that we don't teach our children the value of human life that much anymore and our culture certainly doesn't help in that department. Combining these factors I believe we've gotten what we have currently, a state where we're steadily sliding into a fascist mode of thinking and acting. A key ingredient to that is "a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism". I've been told quite a few times now that if I don't like the way things are, I can just leave. There's no possibility of a rational discussion with a lot of people anymore because they've let our society become polarized over a few subjects (abortion, religion and capital punishment to name some of them) and we pay more attention to those than anything else. (Please reference people blowing up abortion clinics to "save lives". It's like fvcking for virginity.) Inability to conduct logical discourse with a majority of the people I come into contact is the *norm* not the exception. All I get when I try most of the time is the same bs about "like it or lump it" or they resort to name-calling...because telling me that I'm a "tree-hugging enviro-fag" (yeah, that's not made up *rolls eyes*) somehow justifies their position that we should bomb anyone who doesn't look and act like us into the stone age.

      I believe the true problem lies in human nature's resistance to admitting fault. Then again, it's my opinion...and I may be wrong.

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    18. Re:Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi there! Please seek professional help.

    19. Re:Corruption by rickwood · · Score: 1

      Lots of good posts above me so I'll just add this:

      The vast majority of Americans are too busy paying for their refinanced second and third mortgages, taking their kids to baby yoga, and watching American Idol to even notice what is going on, i.e. they might as well be zombies. Seriously. Of the percentage who even have an opinion, the majority simply parrot whatever their commentator of choice has to say on the subject, be it O'Reilly or Olbermann. The remaining fraction who have the ability to see the truth and form a well thought-out opinion on this matter mostly spend their time contemplating emigration to Switzerland, the bottom of a bottle, or suicide, depending on their level of desperation.

      Furthermore, because of our corrupt political system, those who see things for how they are rarely have honest representation in Washington. Getting to choose between Republicans and Democrats is like getting a choice between ointment and suppository: Either way they take it in the ass.

    20. Re:Corruption by SirKron · · Score: 1

      Sounds like we outsourced our presidency and vice-presidency to Haliburton from your description.

      As a member of our military I am all for outsourcing of duties. It is just like corporate America, if you can completely define a subtask, lighten your load by outsourcing it. I would rather pay a little more now for someone to happily complete my task ontime than to give it to a government/military employee that will get bored, take forever, and eventually retire with an expensive pension.

      However, I feel our problem is when you outsource the decision makers. At that point you enter into a issues of fraud and ethical misbehavior. It is really hard for our military to keep highly skilled intelligence officers as they are highly recruited by corporate America. So, that means our "intelligence" officers are the middle of the road guys. Those good enough to get promoted but not good enough to get recruited. Wouldn't you want to outsource too?

      HR in the military is a completely different beast and unless you have been in the military or worked as a contractor it is hard to believe how screwed up it really is.

    21. Re:Corruption by PHPfanboy · · Score: 1

      Cheney doesn't have a "conflict of interest", he has an "interest for conflict"

      --
      29 mpg. YMMV.
    22. Re:Corruption by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Sounds like we outsourced our presidency and vice-presidency to Haliburton from your description.

      Thats an interesting way to put it. I might agree with that assessment of my comment.

      As a member of our military I am all for outsourcing of duties. It is just like corporate America, if you can completely define a subtask, lighten your load by outsourcing it. I would rather pay a little more now for someone to happily complete my task ontime than to give it to a government/military employee that will get bored, take forever, and eventually retire with an expensive pension.

      I'm corporate, I can assure you we wouldn't do it with much more enthusiasm or efficiency and anyone here who isn't eventually going to draw a corprate pension isn't worth employing in general. I don't forsee any real benifits in outsourcign except we'll charge you 150% of what you wouldn't have paid a non-com staff to do the same job.

      However, I feel our problem is when you outsource the decision makers. At that point you enter into a issues of fraud and ethical misbehavior. It is really hard for our military to keep highly skilled intelligence officers as they are highly recruited by corporate America. So, that means our "intelligence" officers are the middle of the road guys. Those good enough to get promoted but not good enough to get recruited. Wouldn't you want to outsource too?

      I can see your problem and Am aware of it. I have a good friend who works for Canadian DOD. For him all the skilled labor is working to get their training for free and at the end of their term they go civ in that field making 5 times what they made in the military. The problem with outsorcing those skilsl though is if you need that position full time your goign to pay more for it since there is now a third party collecting a profit.

      Lets say you offer payment X and civ corps offer 1.5X pay. Any intelligent person will jump on board with the civ corp. Now lets say you outsource to buy that expertise you lost back. Civ Corp isn't going just to lend you it's staff, it wants profit. So it'll charge 3X to loan you. Would it then not make economic sense just to offer a competative wage? Out sourcing makes sense when you don't need that ability full time so paying 3x for it temporarily is better then doing so in times when you don't need it. However this particular instance and in many corps they are out sourcing to get less skilled labour (endangering yrou life) to save a few bucks (often not). They do it because it's in vogue in management and it's perceived to be the thing to do.

      HR in the military is a completely different beast and unless you have been in the military or worked as a contractor it is hard to believe how screwed up it really is.

      I can imagine. Just remember that any suitably large organization has some gong show in one place or another.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    23. Re:Corruption by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I am more offended by the oft-repeated initial claims that the US knew where the Iraqi WMDs and WMD development equipment were when they are nowhere to be found, eventually Bush had to admit that nothing has been found to back his claims.

      While Bush may not have known where the WMDs were, he knew they were there, because he and Cheney had the receipts.

      (I don't take credit for this one. This was a common joke back in 2003. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    24. Re:Corruption by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      As indicated by a couple of the replies to your post, one problem seems to be willful ignorance.

      The real problem is the willful ignorance of the mainstream media. They were so obsessed with finding "fibs" and "exaggurations" with Al Gore in 2000 that they completely ignored it when Bush took credit for passing health care legislation in Texas that he actually, um, vetoed as governor.

      But the press still seems to take Cheney seriously, even though he has much credibility as Baghdad Bob, after still insisting that Iraq was involved with 911 long after the nuttiest wingnuts dropped that line, and claimed in a 2004 debate that he had never seen John Edwards before, even thought they met on three separate occasions.

    25. Re:Corruption by cfulmer · · Score: 1

      And, how do you know that Cheney will go back to Haliburton? Every politicial has the ability to benefit certain private groups, and are thus open to the accusation that they're only doing so to guarantee them a job after office.

      No-bid contracts were awarded (1) because there are very few US companies that can do what Haliburton & KBR did and (2) the bidding process is time consuming, and they were in a rush. In hindsight, there were a LOT of screwups leading up to the war and in the rebuilding. But, those are more easily attributed to poor decision-making (plenty of evidence for that) than to corruption (no direct evidence.)

  18. Outsourcing is for secrecy, which means corruption by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The purpose of outsourcing is avoiding the rules and laws of government, and achieving greater secrecy.

    A secret government is a corrupt government.

    The present intensification of secrecy began in the late 40's with establishment of the idea that the government could secretly manipulate governments and kill people to protect the profits of U.S. companies, particularly oil companies.

    With enough secrecy, a government becomes a dictatorship.

    Both Cheney and Junior are alcoholics, with typical alcoholic personalities. (Even though alcoholics may not be drinking, the personality persists.)

    Alcoholics always or almost always have anger problems. Angry people who are powerful enough may act out their anger by killing people. Alcoholics almost always want to keep things secret, because part of their personality disorder is that they don't face their conflicts. For more about the effect of alcoholism, see The behavior of Bush and Cheney is consistent with the behavior of alcoholics. Bush and Cheney arrest Records.

    It amazes me how easily U.S. citizens have given up their freedoms and the excellent principles on which the great country of the United States was founded. It amazes me that U.S. citizens are willing to work a full month every year to pay for the corruption, to pay for a few ignorant, conflicted people to have their way.

  19. Is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the goal of this administration is to funnel as much money as humanly possible from the US Treasury into a handful of private corporations, does anything like this really come as a surprise? For all you people who think there are some sort of altruistic motivations behind BushCo's actions, simply pay attention to see the truth. Are Halliburton et al really concerned with winning this supposed global war on terror? If they truly are, then why are they selling weapons to Iran? Money is the only motivation these people know.

  20. outsourced by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 5, Funny

    this explains the change in dresscode at some indian call centers, to dark sunglasses and suits

    1. Re:outsourced by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

      Me: Hello is that the Dell call center?

      Tech: Your security clearance is not high for me to divulge that information to you.

      Me: What you mean you cant tell if this is the Dell help desk or not?

      Tech: Well I could tell you but then I would have to kill you.

      Me: FFS is this the Dell help desk or not

      Tech: Yes.

      Me: OK Good. I am having a probem with my laptop... wait a sec, why has it just started ticking? auto destruct in 5...4... WTF?

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
  21. More than just the intelligence services by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's happening all through government. Military and GS people flipping over to contractors literally overnight. Same people doing the exact same job. Khaki on Friday, shirt and tie on Monday. Somehow they appear to have waived the conflict of interest clauses in military service that were supposed to keep that from happening.

    I don't have that many contacts in the intelligence services but I wouldn't be surprised to find the same trend there. I'm betting a lot of the intelligence contracting were government people one day, private contractors the next.

    Either way this is a bad trend. There are some things we want the government to do, even though you can argue it costs more and is less efficient. That's okay. Some services have considerations that need to go beyond the bottom line. Aside from that there appears to be little accountability in contract awards these days and many seem to have political overtones. High level positions going to people whose chief qualification seems to be that they graduated from Oral Roberts University.

    If there's an encouraging sign it's that we're...finally...starting to see some outrage from those calling themselves conservatives. Better late than never I guess.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:More than just the intelligence services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's happening all through government. Military and GS people flipping over to contractors literally overnight. Same people doing the exact same job. Khaki on Friday, shirt and tie on Monday. Somehow they appear to have waived the conflict of interest clauses in military service that were supposed to keep that from happening.

      You forgot to mention that this oftentimes ends up costing the government about twice as much. Remember that this is often done under the guise of "smaller government". Sure, the government itself is now "officially" smaller, but it also costs the taxpayers twice as much to get the same job done.

    2. Re:More than just the intelligence services by BarFly143 · · Score: 1

      Well, at the risk of being mod'ed a troll, I'll play devil's advocate here. Perhaps if more GS employees and Military personnel were more competent at their jobs, they wouldn't need as many contractors. This is particularly a problem in the IT field. From what I've seen, the military personnel are never given the proper time to develop their skills in IT, with all the extraneous BS they have to do. They military aslo has the problem of recruiting people to do the same job as civilians for much less money, so the end result is there aren't many of them . Most of the competent GS personnel jump to contracting to make more money, and what you're left with, for the most part, is deadweight - people waiting around for their retirement pensions who have no interest in becoming better engineers or admins. They figure that technology has passed them by, so why bother. It's damn near impossible to fire a GS employee, so they know they're safe as long as they don't rape or kill someone. I ran into the same thing in the Intelligence field. In my much-vocalized opinion, nearly half the GS employees at the agency I worked at were dead weight; we could cut them out and still get the mission done. Another reason you see outsourcing is the difficulty of getting people into GS positions that require clearances, and doing so in a timely manner (not 2-3 years). They can short cut through the bureaucracy by using contractors (who are often hired later on as full-time GS employees, after their paperwork has made it's way through the GS hiring process).

    3. Re:More than just the intelligence services by ralewi1 · · Score: 1

      In response to parent...
      Weirdly enough there are a lot of military folks that go contractor while waiting to get picked up for a government job. The pay is often less as a "govvie", but contractors are under pressure to hunt down the next contract, have less job security and are subject to the whims of the government and/or the prime contractor (I know, I'm overgeneralizing here.)

      There are many amusing people (parent excluded) in on this whole discussion. There are the liberals that obviously haven't read the article (I know, it's /.) and go into tirades against the Bush administration using the same complaints so often that they jackhammer their own arguments, regardless of validity, to dust through incessant repetition. There are the conservatives that go into Rush-the-fat-pill-popping-tard-dittohead mode and rail against anything regarding the U.S. federal government bureaucracy. Then there are the folks who've read the article and don't quite grasp what's being said. OK, these people aren't funny, they're more "self-parody."

      What I find really funny is that this is a Slashdot discussion about a Slate article... that's based on a Powerpoint brief on acquisition. Besides the telephone effect of involved with a conversation about an opinion piece (the Slate article) done on what is basically an opinion piece (the PPT - and really, what objective/absolute truth has EVER been conveyed in a PPT brief?), there's the dynamic that the whole government/contractor mix is not a fixed ratio, but has pendulum swings - and Slashdot threads about opinion pieces about opinion pieces are bad ways to figure out where it really is. But we do get plenty of "Bush bad"/"Gubmint bad".

  22. Photo of Bush holding hands with Abdullah by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    "... the [Saudi] royals are personal friends and business associates of the Bush family."

    More than just personal friends, physically affectionate friends

  23. Re:enough with the "no wmd" already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may be flamebait, but it's true flamebait.

  24. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by zig007 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The entire UN did NOT agree at all with "what was going on". What kind of bullshit is that? So if you don't let me peek into your home, then you are hiding something? Also, in the end, Saddam HAD opened the doors for inspections and the inspections were, as we now know, being really effective. YOU make ME sick.

    --
    Baboons are cute.
  25. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Tickletaint · · Score: 1

    "Our" loss? Last I checked, we weren't the architects of this disaster in Iraq. So it would perhaps be more accurate to describe it as your loss.

    Oh, you were talking about the election... the one from way back in 2004? Wow. Just wow. Looks like we're not the ones who need to get over it and move on.

    --
    Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
  26. What's with the secrecy anyway ? by billcopc · · Score: 1

    IANA world leader, so feel free to enlighten me, but what right does a publicly elected government have to hide things from its owners ? Owners being the citizens, of course. I know we do things a bit differently up here in the cold green expanse of Canada, but we consider government to be (as a whole) a group of people who act on behalf of the greater population for certain things, and they invoke various democratic devices like referendums for the tricky stuff. That's why we call them public servants. They're supposed to work FOR us. When one of them gets caught behaving badly, we browbeat the smug out of them like a mother to her wayward child, publicly grill to a nice char, then ship them off to some lame ass office job to limit the amount of damage they'll be causing. We may not own the person, but we own their work.

    It's one of those things that triggers a civil protest if things are allowed to linger for too long, or gross injustice is suspected. For example, if there were too much resistance in providing detailed intelligence spending records, and someone is dedicated to getting them out to the public, chances are we'd have a peaceful demonstration in Ottawa until we get our way. It doesn't always work as quickly or efficiently as we'd like, but we get what we want in the end.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
    1. Re:What's with the secrecy anyway ? by oldgeezer1954 · · Score: 1

      Oh c'mon... You don't think CSIS or JTF9 don't have their own set of secrets? How do we ask for, demand, or demonstrate for the release of secret information we don't even know it exists? Neither of us can prove our positions as it's no more possible for you to prove everything is open than it is for me to prove secrets exist. "but what right does a publicly elected government have to hide things from its owners ?" By right of law. The Freedom of Information act carves out a significant number of exclusions. As a fellow canuck I think your glasses are a little too rose coloured about our nation. I do agree with your assesment of how many, if not most, of us view the Government and also that secrets should be minimized if any exist at all but to suggest that we know more up here, or have more power over those we elect via demonstrations, etc, is off the mark imho.

    2. Re:What's with the secrecy anyway ? by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      --IANA world leader, so feel free to enlighten me, but what right does a publicly elected government have to hide things from its owners ?--

      My fiancee works for the US Gov and her and I have had many talks about just that subject. I've swung my opinion to somewhere between where I was when I met her and where she sits. I'll explain:

      There are (in our opinions) certain LIMITED reasons for the government to withhold sensitive information. For the record, "sensitive information" would include things such as troop movements and positions, timetables for said movements, floor plans for certain buildings, and identities of spies. In these cases, releasing that information to the general public is most likely to result in loss of human life on a (sometimes) massive scale. I can't argue with that logic. I don't agree with things like spies and whatnot, but I don't see an option. As for most other things, the goverment should most CERTAINLY be transparent in its doings. To do anything less would be dishonest and above all against the idea of a democracy.

      I recall a news article in the last 6 months or so (sorry, I'm not citing, I don't remember where the heck I read it, please take w/grain of salt.) about someone in the upper levels of the Government basically making some damning evidence against them a matter of "national security". That is utter, grade A, 100% USDA top choice BULLSHIT, and should have been treated as such.

      My parents used to tell me that if I didn't think for myself, someone else, most likely far less qualified, will do it for me. I wish more parents would have included that in the raising of their children.

      My 2 cents,
      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    3. Re:What's with the secrecy anyway ? by enmane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That was something my father always talked about when he came to this country and noticed the lack of cooperation amongst individuals. I guess in "the old country" people used to get together and complain. It happened once here, I think it was called the labor movement. Despite what the unions are portrayed as today, right or wrong, it was a good thing at the time.

      These days, it's the same thing, people just don't come together and protest _anything_ - it's a feeling of being powerless. I don't know where it comes from but it is weird.

      My father used to joke that the ruination of America will be the same thing that made it great - the forgetting of the "old ways." I now get the joke even though I didn't at the time. Sure people had it worse at the time and so they wanted to throw the yoke off of their shoulders (get rid of the old ways) and start with a new gov't but as I see it, we've forgotten how to band together and flex our collective muscle (getting rid of the old ways).

    4. Re:What's with the secrecy anyway ? by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Yep I've seen the same thing happen, moving from a small town to a huge one. I've always been largely anti-social, mainly because I'm an elitist asshole :) but I've always at least known my neighbors to some extent... until I moved to the nation's capital. Here, half the people on my street are freaks, and the other half look away when they walk past anyone. People just aren't approachable at all, now they even have ME worrying that they'll pull out some lame-ass personal alarm or pepper spray if I dare to ask their name. If I were running at them with a machete, well then I'd understand, but I can't think of any incident where an innocent bystander was assaulted with a box of blank DVD-Rs.

      This leads to some rather stupid entanglements, like having the police called for every little thing. People don't even have the "bravery" to come knock on the door when someone's music is a little louder than they'd like. I remember one time that happened to me, years ago. I kept getting noise complaints for every little thing, they even bitched about my bathroom exhaust fan being too noisy! So I started filing equally dubious complaints right back at the pest. The cops have a three-strike rule for most personal issues, so after the 2nd visit, my neighbor decided to walk the 15 feet to my door and knock. Now I'm a 5'11" 250lb young white guy, I opened my door to this 5'2" middle-aged runt (his wife's a butch), and he literally jumped back when he saw me. Did he think I'd lunge out and pummel him ? Probably, but he composed himself and asked if I could turn it down "a tiny bit". I said "No problem, sorry about that". Did I have the physical and tactical means to hurt him ? Sure! But would I ? Probably not, so what's with this ingrained fear that's destroying society ?

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  27. Fictional WMDs by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't recall hearing *any* politician, regardless of the country they are in, but especially the Congressional ones, apologize, or otherwise admit they were wrong regarding these WMDs.

    They were all hell-bent on starting a quick war, perhaps in the hopes of cleaning up in the polls and making themselves look good (which, they should know by now, is impossible in the eyes of the American people and perhaps the world).

    It was not just our President who was convinced, but Congress was as well, even the notoriously liberal (in all the wrong ways) Kennedy, who said, and I quote here:

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    and one from Mr. "I invented the Interwebs":

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    Whether we went in looking for nukes or bacteria is moot, we are there now, but those that saw the war take an unfavourable turn (and apparently know nothing of history, the losses we have incurred there are miniscule compared to, say WW2 island hopping losses) have hardly admitted their mistake in being for it.

    The hypocrasy surrounding the entire Iraq was is astounding.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:Fictional WMDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but Congress was as well

      Because of course Congress had their own investigation into the whole thing, and went there personally to inspect the sites that Bush claimed had "photographic proof" of WMD manufacturing.

      Or did they just trust the report the executive branch handed them to be correct?

      miniscule compared to, say WW2 island hopping losses

      Those losses had a plan behind them: we had front lines, an enemy army, and missions to move the front lines deeper. What is our plan in Iraq? Have more soldiers drive around in circles waiting to be blown up? People are generally willing to sacrifice for a greater good, but Bush has been unable to explain how to get to the greater good from our current sacrifice.

    2. Re:Fictional WMDs by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 2

      Well, there's a subtle and important difference between saying: "we know that Saddam has been searching for WMD, and we assume he still is searching", and "we know that Saddam currently has WMD, and that's why we attack now". The first part of the former is provably true, and the assumption not necessarily incorrect. The latter is a blatant lie.

    3. Re:Fictional WMDs by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Why should the Congress apologize when Bush fed them faulty intelligence? The Congress doesn't have it's own intel program. Any intelligence they get comes from the Executive branch. The quotes you take from Liberal senators was from 2002. The war in Iraq didn't start until March 20th 2003. They just were repeating the false intelligence and horror stories the Bush administration had fed them in private security briefings. We didn't find out about the WMD lies until well after the war was over.

      Whey are you concentrating on the bad intel Liberal Senators got from the Bush administration and repeated? Why don't you hold Bush and Company accountable? Why don't you hold conservative, Republican senators accountable. Some of them claim that there *were* weapons, we just haven't found them yet. They're in Syria or something. Some of them are even claiming that we *did* find weapons! It's funny how you've taken a Republican, Neo-con fraud and use it to make liberal Democrats look bad.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    4. Re:Fictional WMDs by MLease · · Score: 1

      Yes, Congress was complicit in entering Iraq, but then again, they were spoon-fed disinformation from the executive branch regarding the WMDs. I can understand why they went along, in the post-9/11 atmosphere, and given the poor information they had. However, there were a number of people (myself included) who were opposed from day 1, and were unhappy with Congress for not standing up and demanding better evidence.

      WMDs were the excuse, chosen by the President and his cronies, to drum up enough support for the war to go in. After it became apparent that they didn't exist, the rationale switched to Saddam's alleged support of Al Qaeda (a lie), and then to the nebulous, "Well, Saddam was such an evil, bloodthirsty dictator that he had to go!" But it all comes down to the neo-conservatives' desire to "redeem" the first Gulf War and "win" (whether for oil, or for misguided notions of remaking the Middle East in our image). Some victory, eh?

      -Mike

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
    5. Re:Fictional WMDs by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      I don't recall hearing *any* politician, regardless of the country they are in, but especially the Congressional ones, apologize, or otherwise admit they were wrong regarding these WMDs.

      These British MPs voted against the war, so have nothing to apologise for. Don't go giving the impression that all the politicians everywhere were right behind George Bush.

      Diane Abbott, Graham Allen, John Austin, Tony Banks, Harry Barnes, John Battle, Andrew Bennett, Joe Benton, Roger Berry, Harold Best, Bob Blizzard, Keith Bradley, Kevin Brennan, Karen Buck, Richard Burden, Anne Campbell, Ronnie Campbell, Martin Caton, David Chaytor, Michael Clapham, Helen Clark, Tom Clarke, Tony Clarke, Harry Cohen, Iain Coleman, Michael Connarty, Frank Cook, Robin Cook, Jeremy Corbyn, Jim Cousins, Tom Cox, David Crausby, Ann Cryer, John Cryer, Tam Dalyell , Valerie Davey, Ian Davidson, Denzil Davies, Terry Davis, Hilton Dawson, John Denham, Parmjit Dhanda, Jim Dobbin, Frank Dobson, Frank Doran, David Drew, Huw Edwards, Clive Efford, Bill Etherington, Mark Fisher, Paul Flynn, Hywel Francis,George Galloway, Neil Gerrard, Ian Gibson, Roger Godsiff, Win Griffiths, John Grogan , Patrick Hall, David Hamilton, Fabian Hamilton, Dai Havard, Doug Henderson, Stephen Hepburn, David Heyes, David Hinchliffe, Kate Hoey, Jimmy Hood, Kelvin Hopkins, Joan Humble, Brian Iddon, Eric Illsley, Glenda Jackson, Helen Jackson, Jon Owen Jones, Lynne Jones, Martyn Jones, David Kidney, Peter Kilfoyle, Mark Lazarowicz, David Lepper, Terry Lewis, Tony Lloyd, Ian Lucas, Iain Luke, John Lyons, Christine McCafferty, John McDonnell, Ann McKechin, Kevin McNamara, Tony McWalter, Alice Mahon, Jim Marshall, Robert Marshall-Andrews, Eric Martlew, Julie Morgan, Chris Mullin, Denis Murphy, Doug Naysmith, Eddie O'Hara, Diana Organ, Albert Owen, Linda Perham, Peter Pike, Kerry Pollard, Gordon Prentice, Gwyn Prosser, Ken Purchase, John Robertson, Joan Ruddock, Martin Salter, Mohammad Sarwar, Malcolm Savidge, Philip Sawford, Brian Sedgemore, Debra Shipley, Alan Simpson, Marsha Singh, Chris Smith, Llew Smith, George Stevenson, Gavin Strang, Graham Stringer, David Taylor, Jon Trickett, Paul Truswell, Desmond Turner, Bill Tynan, Rudi Vis, Joan Walley, Robert Wareing, Alan Whitehead, Alan Williams, Betty Williams, Mike Wood, Tony Worthington, David Wright, Tony Wright, Derek Wyatt -- http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,91738 6,00.html

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    6. Re:Fictional WMDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

      If this is true, surely Clinton must have known about it. Or was Bush spoon-feeding him intelligence, too?

      Oh wait, the thousands and thousands of dead Iraqis over the course of a decade just might give us a clue that something was amiss in the cradle of civilization...

      I don't recall hearing *any* politician, regardless of the country they are in, but especially the Congressional ones, apologize, or otherwise admit they were wrong regarding these WMDs.

      They were all hell-bent on starting a quick war, perhaps in the hopes of cleaning up in the polls and making themselves look good (which, they should know by now, is impossible in the eyes of the American people and perhaps the world).


      Thank you. When are people going to learn that politicians -- ALL politicians -- don't give a moldy lizard shit about our needs and concerns? Please, does anyone really expect these people to serve the public interest out of the goodness of their hearts, to be held to some lofty moral standard, and further to actually publicly renege any stance they assume, however ill-guided? Of course not, because once they do that the pop-media-infested minds of the American public slam the hell out of them. "See?!!?!?! (insert frothing mouth here) I TOLD you (s)he was evil!!1!1eleventy!!"

    7. Re:Fictional WMDs by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      I don't recall hearing *any* politician, regardless of the country they are in, but especially the Congressional ones, apologize, or otherwise admit they were wrong regarding these WMDs.

      John Edwards did, a year and a half ago.

      It was not just our President who was convinced, but Congress was as well

      Yes, Congress was convinced, convinced by the intelligence fed to them by the administration.

      and one from Mr. "I invented the Interwebs"

      Any more bullshit talking points you'd like to rattle off here? How about Love Story or Love Canal? Pelosi One? Plame was not covert? As long as you're making shit up, go hog wild.

      and I quote here

      Why stop with two? Why not give out the whole list of quotes from Clinton administration officials saying Saddam was a bad guy that wanted WMD? It's a few pages long. The problem with the list, is that there are no quotes saying that Saddam was such an imminent threat that we had to take him out now, no time for diplomacy or weapons inspectors.

  28. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So few words yet so many lies. I'm impressed you managed to avoid the use of any truth in your post. +5 Creative Fabrication

  29. We had inspectors in Iraq. by khasim · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And Saddam was refusing to let people in to inpect, which to any logical person would indicate someting wrong was going on.

    We had inspectors in Iraq. Right up until our invasion. And they found NOTHING to even indicate that Saddam had any weapons facilities. Much less actual "WMD's".

    Dont forget the entire UN agreed with what was going on, and since you all simply want to bash Bush, dont forget that this ( apparently wrong ) intelligence was around long before Bush was around.

    Which was why those inspectors were in Iraq.

    I was one of the ones protesting the war BEFORE it started. We wanted to wait for the inspectors to do their job.

    Meanwhile, everyone who was pushing for war was claiming that the inspectors were incompetent because they couldn't find the "WMD's" that we "knew" Saddam had.

    You people make me sick. Get over your loss and move on. Or better yet, get the hell out.

    The problem is that we are losing more of our troops over there ever week. Kind of hard to 'get over your loss' when they just died, isn't it?

    Plus it was a violation of his agreements which automaticaly authorized action, regardless of existance of any WMD type technology.

    And which of those agreements was worth the 3,400+ of our troops that have died over there? Or the uncounted number of Iraqi civilians who have died? Please be specific in your answer.
    1. Re:We had inspectors in Iraq. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make me sick. Nuke the country? Saddam WAS NOT A RISK TO AMERICAN SECURITY HE JUST HAD LOADS OF OIL.

      People like you should have your vote taken away. genocide is a minor thing to you isn't it?

      http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?num=10&so=0& q=cia+duration%3Along&start=0

      http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?num=10&so=0& q=iraq+duration%3Along&start=0

      http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

      http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=chatthe planet

      how about you do some research into what is actually going on in iraq and what your country has done in its 'great history of supporting freedom and democracy'

    2. Re:We had inspectors in Iraq. by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Troll

      "People like you should have your vote taken away. genocide is a minor thing to you isn't it?"

      When its necessary, yes it is a minor thing.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:We had inspectors in Iraq. by Tickletaint · · Score: 1

      Jeez, relax. "nurb432" is obviously brilliant satire, and the funniest part is that we're actually buying it. And if it isn't, is it really worth your time to reply?

      --
      Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
    4. Re:We had inspectors in Iraq. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ---Its a damned war, the only goal is to win.---

      "Mission Accomplished" -GWB

      *muttered*....ass-bandit.

    5. Re:We had inspectors in Iraq. by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      And which of those agreements was worth the 3,400+ of our troops that have died over there? Or the uncounted number of Iraqi civilians who have died? Please be specific in your answer.

      That would be about 650,000 give or take a few hundred thousand. "The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt. ... the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust"." -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/649575 3.stm

      Fuck you George Bush. And while we're at it, fuck you Tony Blair as well.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    6. Re:We had inspectors in Iraq. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is. That mentality is the reason this war was allowed to take place, most americans dont care that saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 his just a bad guy to go after thats an arab.

      if the guy is joking then I would imagine he would admit it after a few flamebait threads but his just going to far.

      Iraq and the iraqi people have never done anything to america, so why the hell should they nuke them? does anyone happen to remember when gwbush made threats of using small nuclear bombs on iraq if they did use chemical weapons? funny that it got forgotten so quickly.

    7. Re:We had inspectors in Iraq. by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Well said, Good Citizen khasim, well said! And these same fools who will take issue with your most excellent post actually believe (a) there's a Global War on Terror, and (b) the Busheviks are "winning" this GWOT, as opposed to say....:

      Bush has/will attack the only two countries which HAVEN'T harbored and/or aided and abetted al Qaeda - Iraq and Iran,

      royally screwed up in Afghanistan,

      continues to royally screw up in Iraq,

      failed to find OBL,

      still hasn't secured the US borders,

      has rendered the once secure borders of Iraq insecure - allowing for terrorists to be trained there,

      And a whole bunch of other crap.....

    8. Re:We had inspectors in Iraq. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      It gets me everytime. Some US inhabitant is dissatified with the war and pushing the 3,000 US troop deaths as an argument that the war went haywire. This really pisses me off. There are 3,000 US deaths because of Bush's action, yet there are 300,000 - 600,000 Iraqi deaths through these same actions, and they are not worth mentioning? Get your priorities straight: these 3,000 soldiers are professionals, and have chosen to do this. The 300-600K Iraqis are civilians, without a choice. These are the victims, not the soldiers. The soldiers are expendable, the citizens are not. The are not to blame here.

      The only way you could feel these 3,000 US deaths are more important than the 300-600K Iraqis is when you subscribe to the Ubermensch fallacy, in which the life of a US citizen is worth more than that of any other citizen. My big problem is that most of the US actually thinks that this is so. Guess what, you're as bad as the guy you are arguing with. Your nation is coming first in your mind, no matter the havoc it wreaks elsewhere. That's sick.

      So, in short: you, and all you who have brought up the 3,000 US casualties as an argument without even considering the 300-600K of Iraqis, are effectively assholes. These 3,000 deaths are at the very most just a single percent of the casualties in the area. I purposefully Godwin myself in stating that you, who argue in terms of US casualties only, are a bunch of fascists, from left to right.

  30. Bug or feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Aftergood and other experts also warn that the lack of transparency creates conditions ripe for corruption."

  31. Re:Outsourcing is for secrecy, which means corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you imagine how many months out of the year we would have to work for this kind of service if the government were bigger?

    Vote like you life depends on it...because it does.

  32. Re:Outsourcing is for secrecy, which means corrupt by Darth+Liberus · · Score: 1

    Wow... thank God I'm just a drunk!

    --
    Beauty is just a light switch away.
  33. This is more old (yes, very old) funny news .... by OldHawk777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is more than anyone wants to know about (USA) prime-contractors, sub-contracting (China, India ...) out software projects for (1997-present) all government systems and agencies. It is all very funny at this point, "Don't Worry, Be Happy, Ignorance is Bliss for US, EU.... We are betrayed more by our own arrogance and incompetence in government, then any prime-contractor.

    If you have core business requirements/products, which you contract out to others, then expect eventually to be filling for bankruptcy and begging forgiveness of the Board and Shareholders for giving the business away. If management is incompetent (true for US, decades), making bad or criminal decisions, it does not matter how hard the rank&file Warriors and Citizens work and sacrifice, the enterprise is going out of business.

    Our present political, military (checkout NPR General stories), and civil-service is weighted with management that says GetItDone, has super socializing skills, takes credit for GettingThingsDone, and nepotisticly distributes blame for FailingToDo to any opposition/lamb, and across the rank&file Warriors' and Citizens' who do the work and sacrifice. I expect to hear years from now that Bush, Chaney ... failed, because of liberals, but if liberals did not exist, then (like Napoleon, Hitler ...) Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld ... would express a form of "If they cannot win for me, then they die for me" (luckily they have the democrats).

    Congress will never impeach Bush/Chaney and DoD (Do or Die) Rumsfeld's bobble-head selected military leaders will perpetuate a politicized and socially approved career path to the four-star level. Military/Intelligence performance is blamed on everything and everyone, except for the (new-spin) Politically-Correct and socially acceptable [[no Warriors, Planners, Commanders, fags, or atheist need apply]]. Warriors, Planners, Commanders... are to be relegated to the tactical level only where they are needed, which will allow General Managers (as in business) to market themselves and maybe eventually become president/CEO (retirement by bankruptcy).

    DOD/Intelligence needs to be freed from oppression of politics, not further politicized by promoting fart-eating, shit-sucking, ass-kissing, bullshitters in the GO and SES community as vapor-success performers. Rank&File Warriors and Citizens do the jobs, politicized management personnel are bottom-feeders and scavengers of the USA workplace (Business, Religion, Government, Military).

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  34. "We should have nuked the country ..." by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We should have nuked the country and been done with it.

    And what did the Iraqi people do to deserve being nuked?

    Its a damned war, the only goal is to win.

    We "won" the war when we took over the Iraqi government. Years ago.

    Again, specifically, which of those agreements was worth the 3,400+ of our troops that have died over there? Or the uncounted number of Iraqi civilians who have died?
    1. Re:"We should have nuked the country ..." by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Its a damned war, the only goal is to win.

      We "won" the war when we took over the Iraqi government. Years ago.


      I've found it interesting that a number of military people have pointed this out. What we're fighting now isn't technically a "war", it's an "occupation". You need rather different tactics for an occupation than for a war. In a war, you can go in with guns blazing, kill lots of people, and "win". In an occupation, behaving that way toward your subjects tends to get exactly the sort of response that we're seeing in Iraq. And it's not like military historians are unaware of this sort of thing. We do have thousands of historic wars and occupations that can be studied, after all.

      I do recall hearing the same sort of comments from military sources back in the early days of the Vietnam "war". It was pointed out that the US actually had "won", in the sense that they controlled the South Vietnam puppet government. The big question was whether the US would be able to hold onto its conquest. A number of historians suggested that the answer was "Probably not", mostly due to the misuse of war strategies to fight what was really an occupation.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  35. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If i dont let you peek into my home its beacuse i didnt agree to it as a condition of surrender.. Saddam did agree to this. When he started playing games its logical to asume shady activity was going on. Letting inspectors into specially 'cleansed' areas does not qualify as 'opening the doors' in my opinion. ( and many others )

    I am willing to accept that perhaps it was all just a scam on his part to make people believe he had something he didnt, to try to pretend he had some power and taunt the world community in general. He still deserved to have his country leveled in either case.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  36. "abusive interrogations" by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 1


    Is that the politically correct way of saying TORTURE? How do you say Death By Torture then http://www.google.com/search?q=us+death+by+torture ?

  37. Re:Corruption & CHENEY IS THE MASTER OF IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    My man, we ALL see it & know it, here in the U.S.A., all the way from our educated leaders, down to the laborers!

    However, consider this: If you look at our current economic situation, companies first producing shoddy goods/downsizing, & going out of business (ontop of outsourcing of traditionally domestically based jobs), & the declining power of the U.S. Dollar?

    You have your answer.

    E.G.-> Bush/Cheney @ crew are burning up 275 million U.S. Dollars A DAY that could be used to create jobs here internally, but are instead funding this "war for freedom", by "staying the course" and lining their own republican pockets with it AND, not allowing open-bids for the contracts for this all no less!

    (Thus, also lining the pockets of their cronies, and those that funded their political campaigns or those they were formerly connected to and STILL PROFIT BY, UNLIKE OTHER PAST POLITICAL LEADERS WHO HAD TO GIVE UP SUCH INTERESTS & PROFITS UPON TAKING OFFICE (Cheney & Haliburton, vs. Jimmy Carter and his peanut business is an example thereof)).

    All the while, they are outsourcing OUR jobs, and all the while who fights the wars?

    Our young men do, from non-connected politically & non-wealthy families is who - "expendable assets" in other words. Sure, they sign up, they get paid... CRUMBS ONLY FROM THE TABLE OF WAR PROFITEER SCUM!

    (Because, face it: Good paying U.S. domestics jobs AND ENTIRE COMPANIES, are disappearing! So, instead of becoming an illegal organized drug dealing criminal? They have to survive + their wives & kids too (so, put your life on the line, because "UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU!" for a bullet bag). ALL, so Haliburton, Cheney, Bush, Republicans all, Raytheon, Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), & Lockheed Martin get ahead & profit by YOUR blood)!

    On jobs? Hey - The IT sector illustrates this, the best.

    Show a U.S. worker a buck, the RIGHT buck, he'll give you the most precious thing there is and work his ass off: His time (in 60-80 hour weeks - do others in other nations work this hard I wonder? I know I have and watch my brother do the same) and life (time with his family the most important thing there is), so his kids have a better one, hopefully.

    We get crumbs from the table of corrupt pigs though, at best, & keep our mouths SHUT to keep making a living, while it is still doable. For how long though? Somewhere along the line, the old true adage of "You have to spend money, to MAKE money" got lost.

    The leaders of feudal Britain, for example, never COMPLETELY starved out their serfs. Yes, they kept them wanting more, which is good, not overpaying them, BUT, they gave the serfs enough to go home, drink ale, eat food, bang the old lady, & have some more serfs to work the fields and provide soldiery for those same lords, & do the same thing again, day after day.

    (HOWEVER, the lords of the manor/kingdom NEVER totally robbed them. It would be "bad business" really. Just like not putting monies back into your vehicle for fuel, oil changes & other maintenance, & insurances, etc. (plant, property, & equipment care)).

    No, instead, we are all "expendable, replaceable, assets"... no wonder many people won't buy U.S. Goods anymore, just out of principle! Do me wrong? Screw you, I'll do the same & buy better made foreign goods just out of spite, if not for a better bang for my hard-earned buck.

    Attitude reflects leadership & "SHIT FLOWS DOWNWARDS!", absolutely. They provide the corrupt example from the top.

    Thing is, when they do this, they outsource good paying jobs, & cut out our populace's disposable income (monies above & beyond food + rent + utilities (basics)) & put us into a "hand-to-mouth" financial situation?

    I.E.-> Via these machinations, You get silent, obedient slaves! Some people might call it genius creating such a perfect trap, but I call it a stupidity of galactic proportions... greed is all it is, and it is SO easy to be bogus/des

  38. Ignorance and the Death of the Truth by N8F8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I dare you to read the full speech that Bush made to the UN prior to the second Iraq war. You just may realize that the press has been lying to you, or at least obfuscating the truth. President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
    Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly
    New York, New York

    10:39 A.M. EDT

    THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

    We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.

    The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

    Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

    As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.

    Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

    Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

    In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

    Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to co

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Ignorance and the Death of the Truth by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I dare you to read the full speech that Bush made to the UN prior to the second Iraq war. You just may realize that the press has been lying to you, or at least obfuscating the truth. I can't figure out your point. I read a speech where Bush makes deliberately misleading statements about Iraq's WMD capabilities and activities. Are you trying to say that the press has been covering up the level of his prevarications? Or are you naive enough to believe that whatever a politician says is the god's honest truth with not even a hint of dissembly?

      BTW, for anyone wondering where that speech came from: It's here.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Ignorance and the Death of the Truth by N8F8 · · Score: 1
      In the entire speech there is only one questionable statement "buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium...". In retrospect the likely use was in making better Scud missiles.

      Now, what proof do you offer? Are you crazy? Are you hallucinating some other text? Virtually every other assertion is credited to UN reports. BTW, I worked in the intelligence field at the time he made this speech so I know the "facts" even though the Democrats in Congress pretend otherwise. At the time they saw the same evidence and reports the President saw and came to the same conclusions. Most anyhow.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    3. Re:Ignorance and the Death of the Truth by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I worked in the intelligence field at the time he made this speech so I know the "facts" Baloney. Don't try to pull a false appeal to authority on me. You had no need to know, you were not cleared for access, the best you might have known were no more than rumors one step above what the public hears. And if you *had* been cleared, you would not be talking about the details on slashdot.

      In the entire speech there is only one questionable statement "buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium...". More baloney. For example, the entire bit about anthrax was pure deception. The referenced defector, Hussein Kamal, revealed a program that had existed prior to 1991 and was (at the time in 1994) long defunct. Furthermore, Kamal also stated that all of the anthrax from that program and all other WMDs had been destroyed at the end of the gulf war at his specific direction. This is a perfect example of Bush's half-truths and deceptions.

      I'm not even going to touch your aluminum tube joke.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Ignorance and the Death of the Truth by N8F8 · · Score: 1
      I was a duty CINCLANT Intel Specialist. I had codeword access and I reviewed EVERYTHING coming in on the message system plus special reports and helped develop the summary reports for local access. If you know anything about that field the last sentence should be a dead giveaway that I do know what I'm talking about (without violating any laws).

      As far as the anthrax info, without going into specific classified information, here is a contemporary DOD report that was released to the public.

      The Whitehouse is a consumer of intel, not a producer. I have plenty of complaints about the past and current systems for collecting, handling, analyzing and summarizing that intel, but none of that amounts to intentional LYING. YOU choose to put blinders on and read this report and only see the 5% that may have been proven correct in hindsight. YOU choose to ignore the fact that bilateral Congressional Committees read the same stuff the Whitehouse and came to the same conclusions. The other 95% of the reasoning for going into Iraq still holds up.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    5. Re:Ignorance and the Death of the Truth by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      As far as the anthrax info, without going into specific classified information, here is a contemporary DOD report that was released to the public. Hey, a freakin PR website that repeats the same deception of relevancy by being off by more than a decade! Grrrreat supporting proof you got there. IF that's the quality of info fed to congress, no wonder they went along with it considering all the political hysteria Bush and Co were whipping up -- go along, get along.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:Ignorance and the Death of the Truth by N8F8 · · Score: 1

      Brainwashed, here's the source document. I realize how hard it is for non-critical minds to understand. I meant contemporary to the Sept 02 speech Bush gave that I referenced in the original post. Duh.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    7. Re:Ignorance and the Death of the Truth by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1
      Again, the document is pure propaganda, notice how each section ends with a question about "what is iraq hiding?" That's not intelligence, that's hyperbole. It's purely designed to support the president's agenda. In 2002, Congress wasn't looking to do due diligence, it was looking for an excuse to support the executive office's agenda. Those types of reports that only told half the story were exactly the cover they needed.

      My point is clear and unequivocal. The speech you posted said:

      From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. That statement is completely misleading. What the defector "exposed" was the existence of those programs before 1991, not afterwards. He was also explicit that the programs ended and everything they had produced was destroyed. Bush cited the defector's reports, but left the relevant details out of his speech, that's deceptive.

      U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. Note how he said "were used" - he knew they were not currently being used for production of biological weapons, so any improvements to the facilities had nothing to do with WMDs. Again, deceptive wording intended to leave the impression of imminent danger when none existed.

      Furthermore, your claim to "codeword access" is again meaningless. Codeword programs are a dime a dozen, just because you had access to one program doesn't mean you had access to any relevant to the issue.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:Ignorance and the Death of the Truth by N8F8 · · Score: 1

      Please cite references for your assertions. IF you read the real ISG report you will see that until 1995 there is substantial evidence thet until 1995 they had continued development (expanding the facility including extensive anti-air installations) at the Al-Hakam facility. Sometime in 1995 Hussain had an "Oh Shit" moment and was about to get caught with his pants down and decided to stop working at that facility. If you recall there are a lot of odd incidents between the UNSCOM folks and the Iraqi military whenever they tried to inspect the facility. All that came about, then suspect because of the defection of the scientist/general and Hussain's worry about what he might say. Even though the defector, Hussein Kamal, never admitted to anything that would have incriminated Iraq (really himself), Hussain didn't know what he said. Put Bush's statement in perspective and it make sense.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    9. Re:Ignorance and the Death of the Truth by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Please cite references for your assertions. I already did, go back to my post where I linked to the actual debrief of Kamal - Bush cited Kamal but left out half the story. You claim, "In the entire speech there is only one questionable statement..." I've already shown there to be at a minimum TWO MORE.

      IF you read the real ISG report you will see that until 1995 there is substantial evidence thet until 1995... You write the words yourself, but you don't even comprehend them. 1995 is seven years prior to 2002. Bush's speech is all about how the threat was current, not close to a decade old.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    10. Re:Ignorance and the Death of the Truth by N8F8 · · Score: 1

      You are misintrepretring Bush's speech. He said, "After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks.". The defector didn't say that but his defection forced the Iraqi regime to show it's cards or get caught in a huge lie outright since they believed that the UN would keep pushing harder and harder to inspect the Al Hakam site and interviewing the scientists working there.

      Bush's point was that by hiding the Al Hakam work from 1991-1995 he had demonstratively shown his intent to not comply with the UN sanctions or the terms of the first Surrender. In other words, we KNOW he was violating the sanctions in 1995, what else is he doing that we haven't caught him at. He has shown his intent in so many other ways.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  39. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Since your other idiocies have already been addressed...

    Or better yet, get the hell out.
    I have just as much right to express my ire as anyone else. It's called democracy and free speech. You don't like democracy and free speech? Then *YOU* get the hell out, you stinking fascist.

    And, BTW, about your sig...

    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    The civil war ended over 140 years ago. Talk about needing to "get over your loss". I guess you're still upset that you are not allowed to own slaves.
    --
    I feel like death on a soda cracker.
  40. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by gammaraybuster · · Score: 1, Troll

    So if George W creates a scam on his part to make people believe, and taunts the world community, he deserves to have his country leveled? This is the logic of the NeoCons.

  41. Transparency? by binkless · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anybody else find the idea of transparency in spying to be an odd conception?

  42. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Thats not at all a comparison, and you know it.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  43. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by alfredo · · Score: 1

    They also ignored intelligence from countries that they don't like. The French have a fine intelligence service that has vast knowledge of the Mideast (especially Afghanistan), and experience in countering terrorism. Instead of listening to them, they called them "Cheese eating surrender monkeys."

    France tried to warn us in January 2001.

    ASA veteran 65-69 4th USASAFS 66-69

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  44. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by kharchenko · · Score: 1

    >You people make me sick. Get over your loss and move on. Or better yet, get the hell out.
    I assume by "moving on" you mean forsake accountability and accept purposeful wrongdoings as proper?
    What makes me sick is that there are people like you urging others to "move on" while our soldiers are dying for these same mistakes almost every day.
    War is a grave burden, and a wrongful war is a truly horrible one. As far as I am concerned whoever pushed their own agenda to start this war should go to jail.

  45. Wrong! Spy boys/girls in the field never fail US! by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Content-spin of collected intelligence to fit a political agenda failed US!

    Our Warriors have never and will never fail US, but politicized DOD policy/tactics
    and political GOs failed US, and caused catastrophic results for US, which would not
    have been possible without "content-spin-lies" by some political GOs, Bush, Chaney,
    Rice, Rumsfeld ... and a "New World Order"/"New-Conservatism.

    Content-spin is continuing as if creating a plausible denial history of information
    for posterity and the legacy of failure. Criminally thousands of eMail (official public
    record) were lost/destroyed, intentional outing of a CIA operative, corruption of DOD
    Chain of Command and acquisition; Also, Environmental, Economic, Academic/Science,
    Military Readiness/History, Personnel Availability ... all being edited to fit a political
    agenda, and pass blame to the next administration/congress, much like Nazi-Germany,
    Stalinist-Russia, Imperialist-Japan, Revolutionary-China ... I guess, image is all
    important, justifying greed, lies, torture, murder, war....

    Oh, by the way folks, Iraq is a battlefield/region/area .... Iraq is a politicized policing action just like Vietnam, it aint' a funking WAR, unless your own boots (or family/friend) are on the ground with a personal weapon always ready. We do have a WAR with selected groups of terrorist ... using Arabs, Persians, North Africans ... makes it easier for a Christian/Religious (non-Muslim) Nation to swallow the BS-lies. We need to go after the specific targets (BinLaden, Islamist, foreign and domestic terrorist of all beliefs ...) and never let them rest until they are underground and dead. I would like a global ultimatum to all terrorist (all are murders, not Warriors) and national leaders that harbor and aid the terrorist: "Let US and EU live in peace, or die ASAP!"

    The "Iraq War" is just another content-spin Chaney, Rove, Bush ... lie for fools like US. When will we all stop believing the lies of politicians (Education, Social Security, Health Care ... the last three gauld-dang ficking decades)? PLEASE, Vote all politicians out after every term, then maybe we'll get our democracy back; Also, "DON'T VOTE STUPID" applies to candidates and voters. End this BS AFAFP (As Fast As fycking Possible), always vote'em out.

    DOD management is ill and remains a performance failure, proof is in Iraq (Vehicle and Personal armor, Bomb Jammers (the new short supply BJ), billions of tax dollars lost a/o skimmed off, troops poorly feed and clothed, Disabled Veterans (even after Vietnam lessons) treated like a burden and rabble-rousers for demanding reasonable and obligatory (for US) treatment. I would not be surprised, if some one investigated/audited weapon systems development and found that more is paid for vapor-weapons/performance than at any time in USA Military History.

    Whoops, too much, too far again, must be due to my advanced age and maybe early onset of dementia. !HAVEFUN!

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  46. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

    I'll bite. Why is it not a comparison? If the actions are comparable, what's the big deal?

    My 2c,

    A.A

    --
    Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
  47. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by bdjacobson · · Score: 1

    The "intelligence" failure was in the White House and it's coterie of civilian hit men sent to the Pentagon and the CIA. They simply chose crap, dismissed data they were told was garbage and ignored contrary facts presented to them. Analysts were quitting on principle; I remember them being interviewed in 1992. The PNACers used a hack, Tenet, to put a stamp on their fabricated package of dog poo. Then, after the lies hit the fan, they BLAMED THE INTEL THEY WERE TOLD WAS CRAP. Retch and repeat. And since the Niger documents were a known forgery even then, when do we ask the question: who commissioned the forgeries? I've gotta say that's really just flamebait. People who think this should try getting their information from more than one media source at once-- or from non-media sources. Talk to some of the guys who've been over there. The Iraqis knew we were coming. They had plenty of time to remove their weapons. When our soldiers got there (this is a second-hand story), they found
    a) a massive underground grid of tunnels connecting every single palace to all the others, and
    b) completely empty barracks that the guy described as NOT being what you would have people in, but weapons. The exact situation-- the guys in the squad looked around at each other and laughed because they all knew the barracks had been used for weapons that weren't there anymore.

    Presumably a soldier would know more about this, considering he's seen it firsthand, than you would. As I see it, I listen to what they tell me about what's going on over there; and not any of the media. Then I look at the major broadcasters and see what lines up-- CNN is doom and gloom, nothing good is happening. Fox News is more in line with what I'm hearing from the soldiers over there, that yes they had WMDs, they don't now, we're doing pretty well in our reconstruction efforts, etc.

    That's not even getting into the fact that the Indian newspapers and media were telling us the same thing we presumed when we went in, but for 15 years; that they had tons and tons and tons of weapons.

    I'm sorry, but you Bush bashers had me for a time, but there's simply too much greed in the world to believe CNN is really interested in reporting the truth. Face it-- What sells more? Good news? No, all you hear about is murders and death and the latest mega-virus scare. That's what sells.

    But hey, it's so much easier to spit out a 1-paragraph bash of the current political happenings. Honestly, I haven't heard any sources or proof that comport with your line of thinking; only the same vague references to failure and bad intel that I heard from the start years ago.
  48. Note: by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    War Profiteering is a criminal act which aids the enemy;
    Therefor, I believe, we speak of TREASON by at least a
    vice-president and maybe a few others, but Bush was just
    a puppet in all this. For Bush, I can only support life
    in prison. For Chaney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others it could
    be much worse for them, but truly much better for US.

    No, I am not silly enough to ever expect impeachment and
    TREASON investigation in a plutocrat Corporatist society.
    In a Democratic Society, it would be different.

    Always vote politicians (Local & Fed) out every term.

    "DON'T VOTE STUPID" applies to politicians and voters.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    1. Re:Note: by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Treason is only for playing chess these days. Selling a lot of weapons to Iran, skimming a bit off the top for a red sportscar and then destroying a lot of government documents to cover your tracks doesn't even stop you from getting a plum defence job later on.

  49. Wrong! not flamebait by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    You're a dogmatist or a political marketeer (Adelophobic or Sociopath), which is it?

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    1. Re:Wrong! not flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a dogmatist or a political marketeer (Adelophobic or Sociopath), which is it?
      ---
      I am not a crook.

  50. Re:Right! that was very fun flamebait and truth. by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    You talk and probably walk in a very funny and seductive manner, be careful on the street and/or in prison.

    Damn, more flamebait fun.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  51. cookies can go away when you shut your browser by r00t · · Score: 1

    Well, how long would have them save your state? A minute? An hour? While slashdotted?

    Doesn't your browser support throwing away all cookies when you close it? If so, why isn't that good enough?

    I could ask for throwing them away when the site passes from your history in all tabs and windows, but geez... browser shutdown is pretty good.

    1. Re:cookies can go away when you shut your browser by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

      Because I actually secure my computer and run a minimum level of access needed on all applications. At times I even turn off various settings like colours so I can actually read pages that are pig ugly. I use whitelist's on everything. It's the same as controlling who can log into your computer, you dont sit with guest open access, you lock it down. Same for client access, I control who can set cookies, I control who can change my browser dimensions, I control who can pop up new windows. Or do you prefer to let them have control of your computer which is what it sounds like you are doing.

      --
      http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    2. Re:cookies can go away when you shut your browser by r00t · · Score: 1

      It's a sandbox.

      They can set a cookie all they like. It doesn't stay set for long.

    3. Re:cookies can go away when you shut your browser by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

      My computer isn't a sandbox thank you :) They are a guest on my computer. They should be grateful I even look at their site.

      --
      http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
  52. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by KORfan · · Score: 1

    Dont forget the entire UN agreed with what was going on
    No they didn't, that's why we had to go with the Coalition of the Willing (some of whom weren't willing to be named). The UN said we didn't have enough to justify action, or maybe they just didn't believe us.

  53. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's not fascism when WE do it."

  54. privatization = same job + more cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Reality conflicts with the myth that privitization of government services saves money or increases efficiency. Profit in this context means over-charging. Lack of oversight means decreased efficiency.


    The US Post Office is just one shining example. The UK has its health care system and its trains. You can find more examples in those countries or just about any others where the bug has spread.

  55. pay and job security by r00t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the government, the good person can't be paid well. That would violate all sorts of stupid government rules. The only way to pay the person well is if they are not considered a person, but a business.

    In the government, nobody can fire the differently abled buddhist afro-american transsexual. It can slack off all it wants, generally fuck things up, etc. Competent people aren't all willing to stomach having to deal with that in a coworker, boss, or underling.

    Lots of competent people don't wish to pee in a cup. A few may be light drug users that would still manage to do good work. The rest are just insulted that anybody would suggest that drugs might be in use.

    The government isn't providing stock options, fancy food, etc. It's not like working at Google.

    So contracters, big and small, are how shit gets done. It's economics finding a way past some of the stupidity. The cost is of course some other types of stupidity.

    1. Re:pay and job security by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Lots of competent people don't wish to pee in a cup. A few may be light drug users that would still manage to do good work. The rest are just insulted that anybody would suggest that drugs might be in use. And then there are the ones who simply don't like their privacy invaded on principle.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:pay and job security by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Lots of competent people don't wish to pee in a cup. A few may be light drug users that would still manage to do good work. The rest are just insulted that anybody would suggest that drugs might be in use. Sadly, the case is actually the reverse.

      All the big government contractors require their regular employees to pee in a cup as a condition of employment, just as do most large employers in any business sector in the USA. However, the government itself does not require drug testing for a secret clearance, even higher level clearances just require that you be willing to take a test if questions arise and if you refuse the test, your clearance is revoked. Said questions only arise under exceptional circumstances.

      There may be some clearance levels that do require drug testing up front, but I've not needed them so haven't had to decide if it was worth the pay or not. I can't say what non-clearance related testing the military forces on its own people either.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  56. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He still deserved to have his country leveled in either case.

    Yes all those those people who lived under a man that was propped up by US/UK commercial interests for the last 30 years deserved to die when he became no longer useful. That should teach the next dictator put into place by the same interests a big lesson.

    --
    What?
  57. Re:Outsourcing is for secrecy, which means corrupt by Abcd1234 · · Score: 0, Troll

    It was here:

    Both Cheney [futurepower.org] and Junior [futurepower.org] are alcoholics, with typical alcoholic personalities. (Even though alcoholics may not be drinking, the personality persists.)

    Alcoholics always or almost always have anger problems. Angry people who are powerful enough may act out their anger by killing people.


    That I realized you were either a troll, or mentally retarded. Just FYI, should you want to improve your trolling in the future, or possibly look into treatment options.

  58. This is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Hmmm. Let's see what business model may produce a better intelligence product.

    1. A poor to average paid employee with poor chances of advancement, no financial motivation on his part or the company's/agency's part to do a really good job, an environment where it is virtually impossible to get fired in the low to middle echelons, and with the exact same pay, benefits, rewards and outcome of any kind whether or not an employee does just below the absolute minimum their job requires, or excels (this is government by the way)

    2. A highly paid contracted employee of a business (probably picked out from a government agency as one of the excelling members that did not get anything extra for their work) good opportunity for bonuses, advancement, etc. depending on job performance, good chance of being fired or having contract canceled if they don't perform, competition-based with other companies requiring good reputations and performance, and ultimately motivated by money loss or gain depending on how well the job is done or not. (this is contracted business)

    I think I would pick number 2.....

    1. Re:This is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, shit. which one is halliburton, then?

  59. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

    Dont forget the entire UN agreed with what was going on,

    Bollocks. Leave out the revisionism already.

    "Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, [7] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

    I know this is wikipedia, but any source other than perhaps Fox and the Republican party will say the same.

    --
    "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  60. Re:Corruption & CHENEY IS THE MASTER OF IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot: "Don't drink soap! DILUTE! DILUTE!"

  61. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Hang on - it's 2007 and the weapons have still not been found. It's time to stop pretending that they are still there and a bunch of PR idiots were right and the intelligence analysts in many countries (including the USA) were wrong.

  62. Re:Corruption & CHENEY IS THE MASTER OF IT by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

    Well, ASIDE from the EMPHATIC shouting ;) I'd say that I agree with most of what you said. The corruption of politics is a shameful reality. As I said in an above post, people will only change when forced to, and as you stated, when people are more worried about putting food on their table...suddenly something happening half a world away, while a tragedy, is still half a world away.

    Cheers, and here's to voting your MIND and not your HEART.

    A.A
    (Posting under my real name because freedom not fought for is not worth anything.)

    --
    Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
  63. Power without control, begs to be abused... by mollog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And so it seems to have been abused, but I don't think there's any stopping it now.

    The demographics, an aging baby boom generation who grow more conservative as they age, favor the increasingly protofascist elements of our political system. As we boomers age, we will tend to favor the group of politicians who will promise us old age benefits. The Republican Party has always been out front for looting the public taxes to buy votes from the old. That's just how the system works; one party or the other was going to do it. But now that the political system has been gamed, we need to respond.

    Combine the mono-culture fundamentalist christians (no, not cap C), big oil/big money, the one-issue gun lobby, and the demographics, and you have the recipe for an unbreakable control of our government. And the current crop of villains who had control of our government is just the most recent example of what will become the norm; the abuse of power by those who are best able to manipulate the system.

    The proto fascists will continue to grow a secret police organization, a private (outsourced) police. Eisenhower's prediction about the military-industrial complex came true long ago. But what disheartens me is the knowledge that we will abide this ongoing decay in the values and standards that were hoped for by the founders of our nation. There was no outcry when the Patriot Act was passed. There seems to be no outrage about the Justice Department's (Gonzales, and Card, with assistance from Bush) violations of the law WRT wiretaps. (Think about that. The federal Justice Department breaking the law.)

    We can expect this 'outsourcing' of covert activities to continue because it serves to concentrate power in one branch of our government.

    I named Republicans as a guilty party, but it could just have easily been the Democratic Party. Events in 1964 changed where the balance of power in the Republican Party lay. The names of political parties is not as important as the names of the actors involved and who they serve. I don't think the future of our government is well served by this large secret police organization. Democracy thrives in the open air.

    --
    Best regards.
    1. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by crucini · · Score: 1

      Combine the mono-culture fundamentalist christians (no, not cap C), big oil/big money, the one-issue gun lobby, and the demographics, and you have the recipe for an unbreakable control of our government.

      Unbreakable? First, the Democrats won the last round of elections. Second, the Democrats can modify their platform to appeal to any of these groups. If 90% of the customers want vanilla, which your competitor is selling, and you're selling chocolate, does the competitor have an "unbreakable" control of the market?

      I don't think the future of our government is well served by this large secret police organization. Democracy thrives in the open air.

      All governments need secrecy; all have intelligence agencies, etc. A nation without a secret component would be at an extreme disadvantage in dealing with other nations. And yes, the secrecy breeds incompetence and corruption; this has also been true forever.

      Whether a specific task is performed by government employees or outsourced has no bearing on this issue. In the end it's up to our legislators on the appropriate committees to exercise oversight of intelligence agencies. This has always been a tough task, and the quality of oversight varies.

      Bringing all the secrets out into the open air sounds nice, but it would be quite harmful. To take a random example, if the US has spies in North Korea, would you like their names published?
    2. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      the one-issue gun lobby


      There's a simple way to take this, at least, out of Republican hands. Stop trying to ban guns.

      There's no evidence that crime goes down; in fact, there's oodles of evidence that crime goes up after a gun ban. Gun free bastions like Washington DC, for instance, don't exactly prove the "less guns==less crime" hypothosis.

      So if a Democrat wanted to take at least that part of the Republican voting block away, seeking and getting the endorsement of the NRA might be a good step. Public statements the the 2nd amendment is at least as important as the 1st would help as well.

    3. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by jc42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And so it seems to have been abused, but I don't think there's any stopping it now.

      Actually, when it comes to "intelligence", when was it ever any different?

      You don't need to see the (mostly secret, of course) intelligence reports to understand how bad they have been all along. Just look at US government foreign policy at any time in the past, and you'll quickly get a good feeling for just how badly they misunderstood most of the people they were dealing with in the rest of the world. If the intelligence agencies had ever been doing their job well, it would have been quite obvious from the US government's improved interactions with the rest of the world.

      Of course, the Bush gang is more blatant about it than most. They've made it clear from the start they their policies would be privatization and secrecy. Anyone who was paying attention understood exactly what they meant by this. Surprise that corruption might be involved is mostly a sign of naïveté.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Just look at US government foreign policy at any time in the past, and you'll quickly get a good feeling for just how badly they misunderstood most of the people they were dealing with in the rest of the world. Your claim, if true, could be evidence that the state department or our government misunderstands others. It does not directly support the claim that intelligence agencies are doing a bad job. Intelligence agencies merely provide the facts to our nation's leadership. Advisers and think tanks then analyze the facts and situation and recommend solutions to decision makers. Sometimes their personal agendas are covertly inserted here. The decision makers then weigh the risks and benefits of actions, consider the political fallout, consider whether it will score them brownie points with the electorate, and interject their personal beliefs and biases into the decision or policy.

      To directly blame intelligence agencies for the actions of elected officials is kind of like blaming the Germans for your BMW failing to start on a cold winter morning.

      Oh, I almost forgot to mention that American intelligence was consistently among the best in the world throughout the 20th century. The only times they really sucked were when politicians tied their hands "because gentlemen don't read each other's mail".
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    5. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by cbacba · · Score: 1

      Outsourcing is nothing new. Kennedy tried to hire the mob to 'rub out' fidel castro.

      edwin wilson (alias merchant of death) was a contractor at one time back in the 70s.

      Near as I can tell, the clintons didn't bother much with the intellegence community for their efforts and directly contracted out the private detectives to attack their enemies. They collected FBI files on hundreds of political opponents (and got caught). And, currently, it's come out they've (or she, now) have been having cell phones of political opponents being 'bugged' rather much like what the dems used against bayhner? and gingrich with political operatives following them around with cellphone capable scanners - in direct violation of criminal telecommunications statutes dating back to the 1930s. Of course now, the equipment is much more specialized and expensive than back then.

      In contrast, the bush administration won't even secure the borders or prosecute espionage cases pertaining to former clinton associates like sandy burglar.

    6. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      You don't need to see the (mostly secret, of course) intelligence reports to understand how bad they have been all along. Just look at US government foreign policy at any time in the past, and you'll quickly get a good feeling for just how badly they misunderstood most of the people they were dealing with in the rest of the world. If the intelligence agencies had ever been doing their job well, it would have been quite obvious from the US government's improved interactions with the rest of the world.
      You're assuming that whoever was in charge of deciding of your government's policy at the time was acting while considering the reports of the intelligence agencies and not his own fantasies (or those of his other counsellors). Those reports might very well have been quite accurate and been completely ignored.

      (or of course you may be perfectly right, just pointing out that there isn't enough data to decide either way)
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    7. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by Copid · · Score: 1

      There's a simple way to take this, at least, out of Republican hands. Stop trying to ban guns.
      Exaggerate much? What percentage of gun control supporters are actually interested in "banning" guns? Seriously, now.

      Public statements the the 2nd amendment is at least as important as the 1st would help as well.
      At least as important as the 1st Amendment? I'm not buying into it. I'm all for the individual right to gun ownership, but I'd put restrictions on it well before I'd put restrictions on freedom of speech. For example, if you rob a convenience store, I have zero problem with making it illegal for you to own a gun. Forever. No more guns for you. I can't think of a crime that you could commit that would cause me to support abridging your freedom of speech or religion.

      It might help the situation if we could get away from Second Amendment absolutism a bit. Do you really think that the right to bear arms should be 100% without restriction? Would you be OK with your neighbor down the street owning a hydrogen bomb or a VX gas rocket (to prevent government oppression, you know)?
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    8. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      Exaggerate much? What percentage of gun control supporters are actually interested in "banning" guns? Seriously, now.

      Exactly how do you view "assault weapon bans" then?

      How about HR 1022, which would ban almost all semi-automatic rifles.

      To say the gun-control advocates aren't interested in banning guns is disingenuous. That seems, instead, to be the point of their organization.

      At least as important as the 1st Amendment? I'm not buying into it. I'm all for the individual right to gun ownership, but I'd put restrictions on it well before I'd put restrictions on freedom of speech. For example, if you rob a convenience store, I have zero problem with making it illegal for you to own a gun. Forever. No more guns for you. I can't think of a crime that you could commit that would cause me to support abridging your freedom of speech or religion.


      There's already laws in place to prevent convicted felons ( and some convicted of misdemeanors ) from ever owning firearms again.

      Perhaps those who engage in fraud, say securities fraud, should have the right to continue in that fraud? Or would you restrict their freedom of speach ( via the removal of their SEC license, for instance ) ?

      How about the classic example of limiting the 1st amendment: Do you support the right of free speach to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire?

      It might help the situation if we could get away from Second Amendment absolutism a bit. Do you really think that the right to bear arms should be 100% without restriction? Would you be OK with your neighbor down the street owning a hydrogen bomb or a VX gas rocket (to prevent government oppression, you know)?


      Excellent strawman you've got there. We're not talking about hydrogen bombs or VX gas.

      When you say "get away from Second Amendment absolutism", what some of us hear is "give your guns up".

      That's been a non-starter for the Democrats for at least 20 years. We have only to look at US cities like Washington DC to see how well gun control works as crime control.

      The point is, I think both sides of the gun debate like crime control.

      Instead of trying to take firearms from the law abiding, which not only doesn't work as crime control, but is becoming increasingly unpopular in the US (
      see here for a list of states which now permit law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal defense ), how about focusing on the things that can work.. like education and job opportunities for those economically disadvantaged, increased treatment of the mentally ill, increased treatment for cronic substance abusers / adicts, etc. .

      If Democrats would like to create new laws to remove firearms from those who haven't commited any crime and make self-defense effectively illegal ( see: here ) then they will continue to alienate a large part of the electorate, who simply do not see any evidence that gun control == crime control (quite the contrary).

      If the Democrats would, however, like to attract that part of the electorate then perhaps some changes in their platform are in order.
    9. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by Copid · · Score: 1

      Exactly how do you view "assault weapon bans" then?

      How about HR 1022, which would ban almost all semi-automatic rifles.

      To say the gun-control advocates aren't interested in banning guns is disingenuous. That seems, instead, to be the point of their organization.
      Without getting into the specifics of the legislation in question (note that I generally think that most of the gun control laws people try to pass are deeply flawed and pointless), I would call them bans on certain guns because that's what they are. Your "ban guns" claim is far too broad and alarmist. They're no more trying to "ban guns" than people who try to get certain medications off the shelves are "banning medicine" or people who pass laws keeping certain dangerous vehicles off the road are trying to "ban cars." Saying otherwise is simply disingenuous wordplay.

      There's already laws in place to prevent convicted felons ( and some convicted of misdemeanors ) from ever owning firearms again.
      Yes, and that's a good thing. It's also an indication that the right to bear arms can be limited. There are those who would claim that the 2nd Amendment disallows that sort of regulation.

      Excellent strawman you've got there. We're not talking about hydrogen bombs or VX gas.
      Really? Are you sure? We are talking about "arms" are we not? Or are you agreeing that there is an upper limit as to what constitutes reasonable arms for a private citizen to bear?

      When you say "get away from Second Amendment absolutism", what some of us hear is "give your guns up".
      Perhaps that's because you're not listening to the rest of it? The simple fact is that just about every person agrees that somewhere along the line, the government has the right to restrict the amount of weaponry that you can own. You seem to think that somewhere between "no pointy sticks for anybody" and and "H-bombs for toddlers" there's a reasonable line. You might be surprised to note that just about everybody agrees with you on that. They just disagree on where the line is should be drawn.

      When you use overblown rhetoric like "ban guns" when you're describing a place where somebody has suggested the line be drawn, you're contributing to the problem. I haven't seen anything like a gun ban come anywhere near being a serious platform on the federal level at all. I have seen limitations on certain types of weapons and certain classes of owners proposed, and I think that the people who want to paint those limitations as "banning guns" are doing the country a disservice, just like people who paint foreign policy discussions as "supporting terrorism" or people who call all taxation "theft." The fact is, absolutism on the topic doesn't result in good policy.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    10. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen anything like a gun ban come anywhere near being a serious platform on the federal level at all.


      Not since the 1994 AWB. May it continue to be so.

      I have seen limitations on certain types of weapons and certain classes of owners proposed, and I think that the people who want to paint those limitations as "banning guns" are doing the country a disservice, just like people who paint foreign policy discussions as "supporting terrorism" or people who call all taxation "theft." The fact is, absolutism on the topic doesn't result in good policy.


      In my thinking, the argument goes like this:

      • Violent crime is a problem.
      • The police can not be everywhere to prevent crime.
      • Therefore, there will be times that a law-abiding citizen must have the capability to defend themselves.
      • The most effective means of defense for the average citizen is a firearm.


      If the Democratic party could get behind those ideas, they might gain more supporters from those who currently vote Republican.

      Instead, we hear cries that an armed citizenry will lead to blood in the streets and every fender-bender will lead to OK Corral style gunfights. Which hasn't happened in any of the states which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, a fact Democrats seem to dismiss as inconvenient.

      However, a question for you: Why do you care what "arms" a law-abiding sane citizen possesses? Why do you ( apparently ) see such things as HR 1022 as acceptable? I call such laws gun bans because... well, they ban guns. Thus restricting law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to prevent crime. If you were to look into the specifics of that bill ( which you refuse to do, apparently ) we might agree.

      There might be a middle ground.. current laws against felons and the mentally ill seem to have widespread acceptance, but from there the camps seem to diverge wildly. Banning even certain types of firearms doesn't seem to do anything to limit violent crime, yet there are still those who propose such restrictions.

      So, an acceptable middle ground might be an affirmation, as part of the Democratic party platform, that individual citizens have a right of self defense and to further that right they must have legal access to firearms. This should be a litmus issue, similar to how support for abortion rights is treated.

      But then, I suspect you and I disagree on that.
    11. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by Copid · · Score: 1

      In my thinking, the argument goes like this:

      • Violent crime is a problem.
      • The police can not be everywhere to prevent crime.
      • Therefore, there will be times that a law-abiding citizen must have the capability to defend themselves.
      • The most effective means of defense for the average citizen is a firearm.

      If the Democratic party could get behind those ideas, they might gain more supporters from those who currently vote Republican.

      That's not an unreasonable position. I'm not sure how the AWB fits into it, given that there are still plenty of guns to go around, but it's certainly one way of looking at things.

      However, a question for you: Why do you care what "arms" a law-abiding sane citizen possesses?

      I don't, particularly, as long as they're reasonably unlikely to be dangerous to me and other law abiding citizens. I just don't see the right to bear arms as something to be taken without limitation, and I don't think that somebody proposing restrictions on that right should immediately be decried as some sort of a fanatic who gets his jollies watching innocent people get killed by crack addicted home invaders.

      I would take the argument against the AWB and similar laws more seriously if the argument simply went as follows: "Law abiding citizens with guns aren't hurting anybody and are vanishingly unlikely to do so. There's no compelling reason to take away their right, so let's not do it." The idea that HR 1022 and the like will somehow dry up the supply of guns that are practical for self defense is nonsense. You just don't like the idea that you'll have your rights limited without a good reason, and I can get behind that. What I can't get behind is silly rhetoric like wailing about "gun bans" and the like.

      Why do you ( apparently ) see such things as HR 1022 as acceptable?

      I see it as "acceptable" simply because I don't see a compelling reason in the Constitution that a private citizen should be able to own whatever gun he wants. I also don't see a compelling argument that the particular guns in question are the only guns that can be used for the uses the gun lobby claims to be trying to protect. They're largly not hunting weapons, and I can think of a fairly long list of guns I'd rather have my neighbor using to defend his house (just a few layers of sheetrock away from my bed) than a lot of the weapons on the list.

      That being said, I don't see it as particularly good policy. For the reasons you pointed out, it's clearly not going to make any substantive difference in the safety of the average private citizen, and it's clearly going to do little more than inconvenience legal gun owners, so it's basically nothing more than political theater. I probably wouldn't vote for it if I was a member of Congress, because it would be just another silly law on the books that we'd have to enforce that doesn't make a serious difference.

      I call such laws gun bans because... well, they ban guns.

      Like I said, by that measure, the FDA has banned FOOD and MEDICINE! What evil nutty bastards! Your sentence might be technically correct, but it's hardly what I'd call the most accurate way of making your point. It is, however, a great way of stirring up controversy where none needed to exist.

      Since we're getting deeper into specifics (which I mentioned that I was avoiding simply because I think that the meta-argument about absolute gun rights was more relevant at the moment), I'll tell you what I'd like to see done. To get a gun, you should have to have a license, just like you have to go get a car. It should be relatively easy for an adult without a criminal record to get that license and damn near impossible for anybody else to. As soon as you commit a crime that indicates that your judgment isn't good enough to keep the license, it's gone. Period. Guns

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    12. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      That's not an unreasonable position. I'm not sure how the AWB fits into it, given that there are still plenty of guns to go around, but it's certainly one way of looking at things.


      The AWB limited a law-abiding, sane citizens ability to defend themselves by limiting the available tools.

      Therefore, it was ( and is ) unacceptable. Note that it also failed to impact national crime rates in any measurable way, and is therefore twice a failure.

      Why do you ( apparently ) see such things as HR 1022 as acceptable?

      I see it as "acceptable" simply because I don't see a compelling reason in the Constitution that a private citizen should be able to own whatever gun he wants. I also don't see a compelling argument that the particular guns in question are the only guns that can be used for the uses the gun lobby claims to be trying to protect. They're largly not hunting weapons, and I can think of a fairly long list of guns I'd rather have my neighbor using to defend his house (just a few layers of sheetrock away from my bed) than a lot of the weapons on the list.


      So, in your mind the only real reason someone should own a firearm is for hunting? Self defense is a tangeal benefit?

      I think we've found the difference between our view points. I see self defense and a last ditch resistance to tyrany as the primary reason the 2nd amendment was written.. not as an aid to hunting. Taken in context, the 2nd amendment would allow common citizens the right to keep a personally owned version of current Military weapons, so what we have today is too restrictive given that view.

      It appears that you and I have fundamentally incompatable viewpoints. I would see the loss of gun rights as the destruction of our republic.

      Your views on registration are interesting; they also seem far to trusting of government / politicians and seem ripe for abuse and unlikely to deter crime in any way.

      For instance, if a police officer stops someone on a street and they can't produce their CCW permit, they're already subject to arrest. In your registration scheme, they might also have to produce a "firearms owners card". Redundant, no?

      What would happen if, say, a government decided homosexuality was reason enough to deny someone a "firearms owners card" because it considered such behavior "sinful"? Or decided people with red hair were to be denied?

      I'd much rather trust a thousand common citizens than one politician. Our current system does this imperfectly, but I am hopeful.

      What I hope for is a supreme court decision which affirms the 2nd amendment as an individual right, similar to the federal court decision which recently overturned the gun bans in Washington DC.

      If the democrats did more than knee-jerk bannination reflex legislation ( and yes, I'm "technically correct" ... but there's a large voting block who also sees things such as HR 1022 as gun bans... since such laws ban guns. No, your FDA analogy doesn't work... the guns HR 1022 would ban work as advertised ) they might have a hope of gaining some voters.

      Look, we're not going to convince each other of anything. My original idea was that the current Republican voting block consists in large part of the "God, Guns, and Gays" crowds.

      I thought that if the Democrats embraced gun rights, they could entice a large block of the Republican party to vote Democrat.

      In our conversation, I get the impression that you'd have gun rights supporters convert to a more Democrat view point. That just doesn't seem probable, or for many even possible.

      So, it seems more likely that the "Guns" crowd will continue to vote Republican in droves... which is disheartening. It would be nice if the "Guns" crowd had somewhere to go without giving up their core issue.
    13. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by Copid · · Score: 1

      The AWB limited a law-abiding, sane citizens ability to defend themselves by limiting the available tools. Therefore, it was ( and is ) unacceptable.

      You know, I just haven't read any anecdotes that sounded like this, "I shot him over and over again with my pump action shotgun, but he just kept coming! Thank goodness I had my Uzi or I wouldn't be talking to you right now!" Even with the AWB, there is no shortage of practical self defense weapons. That doesn't make it good policy, but please spare us the alarmist statements.

      Of course, not having RPGs could be regarded as limiting one's ability to defend oneself. The question is, where do you draw the line? It clearly has to be drawn somewhere.

      Note that it also failed to impact national crime rates in any measurable way, and is therefore twice a failure.

      No disagreement there. Like I said, it's generally bad policy and security theater. I just don't see it as legislation that leaves our society defenseless.

      So, in your mind the only real reason someone should own a firearm is for hunting? Self defense is a tangeal benefit?

      I don't remember saying that. As a non-hunting gun owner, that would be a rather silly thing for me to say.

      I think we've found the difference between our view points. I see self defense and a last ditch resistance to tyrany as the primary reason the 2nd amendment was written.. not as an aid to hunting. Taken in context, the 2nd amendment would allow common citizens the right to keep a personally owned version of current Military weapons, so what we have today is too restrictive given that view.

      I take a more nuanced view. Remember, there was supposed to be standing army, and it was the responsibility of the citizenry to provide a militia should it be necessary to raise an army. Of course, this has the nice side benefit that the citizens, being the army, don't have an army to oppress them. Of course, we have the world's largest military now, so we've sort of dropped that whole idea, and we've clearly dropped the idea of a "well regulated" militia with it. What we're left with is a bunch of people with firearms. Now, I don't see that as a big problem as 99.9xxx% of gun owners are never going to hurt anybody. That doesn't mean, however, that we shouldn't be thinking about sensible ways to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

      Again, though, what constitutes weapons comparable to the military? You've already said that H-bombs and VX are right out. Are RPGs OK? Land mines? Are you restricting it to hand-carried firearms? If so, why? Isn't that just about as arbitrary as anything else?

      For instance, if a police officer stops someone on a street and they can't produce their CCW permit, they're already subject to arrest. In your registration scheme, they might also have to produce a "firearms owners card". Redundant, no?

      In that case, it would be. I would say that a CCW permit would suffice in that case. I'm more referring to any firearm possession at all. Locked up, unloaded and in the trunk of your car, but no license to own? Bad dog. The point of the legislation would be less a matter of regulating who could carry a gun around and more to make it a crime to sell guns privately to people who don't clearly have the credentials to own one.

      We both know that right now, dealers have to jump through plenty of hoops to sell a gun to somebody at a storefront. A private sale between two individuals, though? Not so much. The people who are committing crimes with guns aren't buying them from legitimate firearms dealers. They're getting them through private party transactions that the government has no transparency into. I'm suggesting a way to slowly (admittedly very slowly) dry up that aftermarket.

      What would happen if, say, a govern

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    14. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      Of course, not having RPGs could be regarded as limiting one's ability to defend oneself. The question is, where do you draw the line? It clearly has to be drawn somewhere.


      Umm... why does a line have to be drawn?

      Again and again I ask: why do you care what a law-abiding sane citizen posesses? Why do you care? What would restricting them benefit you, especially since you've called such restrictions "bad policy and security theater"?

      If it doesn't work... um... why do it? Why support those who advertise such restrictions as some sort of solution?

      We already have at hand destructive chemicals which can cause much more damage than firearms ( gasoline, chlorine, et. al. ) all largely unregulated. No claptrap please about how they have other uses... firearms are used more often for anything other than crime than for crime.

      If you're worried about your neighbor shooting though walls or something, hunting weapons ( such as the .30-06 ) are far more likely to do that than, say, an semi-auto AR clone in 5.56mm. Of course, such hunting weapons were not covered by the AWB.

      You've already said that H-bombs and VX are right out. Are RPGs OK? Land mines? Are you restricting it to hand-carried firearms? If so, why? Isn't that just about as arbitrary as anything else?


      I said nothing of the kind. In fact, you've convinced me those should be available to law-abiding, sane citizens as well in the same manner firearms are now ( hint: take a look at what it takes to own fully-automatic weapons ).

      We both know that right now, dealers have to jump through plenty of hoops to sell a gun to somebody at a storefront. A private sale between two individuals, though? Not so much. The people who are committing crimes with guns aren't buying them from legitimate firearms dealers. They're getting them through private party transactions that the government has no transparency into. I'm suggesting a way to slowly (admittedly very slowly) dry up that aftermarket.


      And I'd say focus on drying up the supply of criminals, rather that focus on something they can use as a tool. After all, what's to stop them from switching to knives if guns become unavailable ( see also: UK ).

      That's the fundamental difference in our view points. I do not see gun bans as crime bans, but apparently you do.

      I'd much rather existing firearms laws be kept the same or scrapped. Instead, a focus on criminals is called for both in prevention ( mental health funding, substance abuse treatment, job creation, et. al. ) and in deterrance ( and I see an armed citzenry as a key component of that deterrance ).

      You can call me "alarmist", but until such time as the Democratic party ceases to embrace policy which has been proven ineffective they'll continue to alienate a large voting block who, now, can only see their views reflected in the Republican party.

      That's sad. There's even a social justice angle to preventing crime... but the Democrats seem to ignore that, instead focusing on ineffective legislation and feel-good security theater ( nice choice of words you have there, btw. ).
    15. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by CaptKirk3 · · Score: 1
      I agree with the guns to drugs analogy provided by grassyknoll.



      Guns do work as intended, and are therefore largely kept legal unless such a circumstance arises, and then the weapons are removed from the market.



      Extending this analogy with zero manipulation... like prescription drugs, firearms are very useful tools in a limited window of circumstances, and similarly have a tangible danger associated which rises exponentially when potential misuse is factored in. You or a member of your family is approximately 20 times more likely to be killed by a weapon in your home than an intruder (Source: Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67. That's peer-reviewed primary literature as well, so any bias will be small, and the science will be correct).



      To safeguard against this as much as possible, the FDA heavily regulates the prescription drug industry. To gain access to any prescription drug, you must provide a demonstrated need to a licensed physician and obtain his direct approval for your limited use of this substance.



      This substance being anything from allergy medication to high-power narcotics. All we ask, is that firearms, which I think we can all agree possess a potential danger at least equal to that of any prescription drug, be regulated similarly. Actually much less regulated since all you have to do is prove that you're the law abiding citizen you say you are and keep your nose clean and you can have all the firearms you want. You don't even have to have a clearly tangible need. I actually am a proponent of mandatory testing of proficiency as well, and can see no reason to not expect this.



      If you hand a man a gun that is capable of magnifying the power of a single finger action to definitely lethal proportions, then I want to know you're capable of safely operation such a device.



      I would no sooner prefer an untrained handgun owner living next to me, than say... an untrained and unlicensed crane operator working on the side of a highway. The potential for accidental death or injury during use is commensurate.

    16. Re:Power without control, begs to be abused... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1
      First, from five minutes with google "Kellermann AL" seems a bit... contraversial. Until I know more about him and his study ( nb: do his study numbers include suicides?) I take him with a large grain of salt.

      Second, if you'll reread my comment, I discounted the FDA analogy. I see no reason that any law abiding sane citizen should be denied the firearm of their choice. I can see an argument for licensing, say, flamethrowers ( something currently largely unregulated, check your local laws ) or anti-aircraft batteries... but for small arms, I don't see a pressing reason.

      As to this comment:

      I actually am a proponent of mandatory testing of proficiency as well, and can see no reason to not expect this.


      In a sense I agree, although this is ripe for abuse as well. See also: jim crow laws for how such well intended proficiency testing could be misused.
      I will say the CCW training provided by my state seems to be a decent program... as does the "shall issue" permit system.

      Also this:

      If you hand a man a gun that is capable of magnifying the power of a single finger action to definitely lethal proportions, then I want to know you're capable of safely operation such a device.


      Bit dramatic, no? If you've actually shot a firearm, perhaps you'd agree it takes more than a "single finger action" to be effective? Or have you not seen someone at your local range blast though a magazine only to have the target ( at seven meters ) be undamaged?

      Although for testing... Heck, if the police I've shot with can pass their tests, then I doubt anyone would fail ;)

      As for this:

      Actually much less regulated since all you have to do is prove that you're the law abiding citizen you say you are and keep your nose clean and you can have all the firearms you want.


      If you're saying that with a permiting system you'd repeal the 1934 federal firearms act, the 1968 gun control act ( as amended in 1986 ) and the 1989 import bans... you might be on to something.

      As an aside, would You support a law abiding sane citizen owning fully automatic weapons? The "all the firearms you want" part of your comment makes me wonder.

      To drag this back to it's original point: Democrats simply aren't trusted by a large number of gun owners. Their attempts at banning guns ( and I can call nonsense like HR 1022 nothing but a ban ), supported by Democratic party leadership ( Pelosi, et. al. ), are the reason for this distrust.

      My contention is that if the Democrats want to gain votes from gun owners, they should take steps to modify their platform to be more accomodating to gun owners. An acknowlegement that the 2nd amendment is as important as the first would be a good start, as would the acknolegement that all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation or gender have a right to defenend themselves with the most effective means at hand ( i.e. personally owned firearms ).

      From discussions here, I doubt this will happen. Aparently, to Democrats "accomodation for gun owners" means "give up guns that scare us". Exactly why should gun owners give up their firearms... what benefit would they get?

      Crime statistics show no reduction in crime when "assault weapons" are banned, yet there are continued calls to ban them ( and, if you notice, the definition of "assault weapon" is expanded with each attempt at banning ). Its like a losing gambler doubling down with each bad bet. To many, such legislation is pointless at best, nefarious at worst.

      So, I guess the official Democrat position is: if you care about gun rights, vote Republican.

  64. Re:Corruption & CHENEY IS THE MASTER OF IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad to see they've let you out of the asylum. Welcome back.

  65. AT&T says "Not" by rajafarian · · Score: 1

    ... but I'm sure that's what the other corps thinks, too.

  66. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by zig007 · · Score: 1

    The understanding agreement after the first war was not unconditional and was full of vagueness.
    Saddam would never had signed it otherwise. After all, he was the King of Persia.
    Also, UNSCOM had an attitude which enraged the entire region. Things were bound to get complicated.

    Country leveled? The amount of blood thirst on display here today is frightening.

    --
    Baboons are cute.
  67. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by chthon · · Score: 1

    You should read more this web site

    While I admit that it is probably a right-wing publication, I have the impression that they are fairly balanced. I think you can see it mainly in the reporting about the Arab world, there is no rhetorics in the articles.

    Now about the people that he wanted to believe he had something, it was mainly the Arab world. The reason is its neighbor Iran. Iran/Persia dominated the Arab probably for almost 3 millennia. The Arabs fear and loathe the Persians, and Saddam was the only one who had stood up against them. That earned him respect in the Arab world.

  68. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1(Funny if it wasn't so damn true)

  69. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Instead, we listened to the Israelis, which have a fine intelligence service, possible the best in the world, but tend to be a bit...biased...about Mideast affairs for very very obvious reasons.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  70. Re:Corruption & CHENEY IS THE MASTER OF IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Glad to see they've let you out of the asylum. Welcome back." - e:Corruption & CHENEY IS THE MASTER OF IT
    (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @12:38PM (#19363815)

    Wrong door, pal - that post was not me, lol! Seems one of my replies got the better of you, SO BADLY, you are trying to get my goat, & you're making me laugh, but, providing me the opportunity to get your blood pressure up some more!

    Please, DO read on: The post you note? It bears a 'fair' resemblance to my writing style. It's not me though. Strike #1.

    (Ah, at this point, I have to ask: Is your name "Mr. Bush" or "Mr. Cheney"? I have to ask, because you are acting on data that is NOT proof, only speculation (much as they did on the CIA's data, but it was up to they to have it triple checked, & verified - Strike #2)).

    So, all that said & aside - Not even a 'nice try'. You can't goad me into arguing with you, know why?

    Here is why:

    Mods: I am willing to let you give him the IP addresses of both posts (mine above to which he is replying to, and the one he is pointing to in his post)... Once more, ALL just so he can verify the one he put up is not myself & so he looks like a fool acting without proof or verification (kind of like BUSHBY & crew on the CIA's data, lol).

    So, mods? Please, do so in this case, just to make him look like the dolt he is. If he tries to hack me or what-not?? Good luck - 84.735 score on CIS Tool 1.2 here...

    Thank you & STRIKE #3, one the mods will earn, & as Morton Downey Jr. used to say? "YOU'RE OUTTA HERE!"

    (Watch this idiot say I am using proxies next - you can't use those here @ slashdot, nor will the IP odds are, even come CLOSE to the same region as I am in (guess here only though), & I would not (lol) travel who KNOWS how many miles just to post @ slashdot, lol! It's only a forums!)

  71. Re:Sr. Federal, the worth information is not grati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $200 + taxes + money for extra-papers to obtain equivalently clean $200 without need to pay taxes.

  72. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by smoker2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am willing to accept that perhaps it was all just a scam on his part to make people believe he had something he didnt, to try to pretend he had some power and taunt the world community in general. He still deserved to have his country leveled in either case.
    His country ? HIS COUNTRY !?

    The 2006 estimate was that 26,783,383 people live in that country - did they deserve to have THEIR country leveled too ?

    Prick !

    What goes around, comes around, so you had better start making amends for Bush's global interference, otherwise someone might decide to level the U.S. !

    I find it funny that if a surgical strike had taken out saddam and a few of his commanders, then the whole countrys infrastructure would still be intact, and the US wouldn't be mired in the deep shit they are now. And the actual people who fucking live there would be better off. (which was the whole cooked up premise, wasn't it ?)

    But that was never the real intention was it ? The people of Iraq were the last reason for invading, it was all down to backroom agreements between the commander in chief and his military-industrial buddies.

  73. Re:Outsourcing is for secrecy, which means corrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This post confuses me, how is this person retarded? As someone who had to grow up with a powerful, abusive alcoholic and spent several years as an alanon counsler there is nothing in those statements that is crazy. No, not all alcoholics are abusive but if the alcoholic has an abusive personality, power does seem to magnify their abusive tendencies. Even though accusing those two of being alcoholics may be unfair and even possibly libelous, the poster does have a point that they seem to exhibit some common personality traits of abusive alcoholics. Of course there is another disease that has similar traits that is NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder). See if they fit any of these criteria:

    (1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

    (2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

    (3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

    (4) requires excessive admiration

    (5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

    (6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

    (7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

    (8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

    (9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

  74. corruption? by Ep0xi · · Score: 0

    Intelligence failure means NO Intelligence at all? or just Imbecility? I am sad to see that a country is not represented by their goodwill and intelligence.. I'm talking about afghanistan of course.

    --
    ?
  75. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    a) a massive underground grid of tunnels connecting every single palace to all the others, and

    b) completely empty barracks that the guy described as NOT being what you would have people in, but weapons. The exact situation-- the guys in the squad looked around at each other and laughed because they all knew the barracks had been used for weapons that weren't there anymore.

    Gee, could that be because Iraq used to have a much larger military than it had at the time of invasion, including WMDs?

    Jesus Christ, does not one remember past a decade anymore? We know they had WMDs...we invaded in 1991 and forced them to destroy them! Yes, they had vast underground areas for these WMDs and all sorts of crap, none of which could have been used for WMDs because the weapon inspectors that were just there knew where they were.

    But I really like how the 'Saddam did too have WMDs' revisionists don't appear to grasp how much worse that actually would be. Let's pretend you are, hypothetically, absolutely correct. Well, the point of the war wasn't to be 'right', it was to remove the WMDs. If they actually did exist and we didn't get them, we made things ten times worse!

    Before, a country had WMDs, which, incidentally, plenty of countries do and they don't pose much of a threat. Iraq had absolutely no hope of delivering WMDs against us, and no chance of getting away with it if they did. Now...well, apparently, according to you, some random people are wandering around with WMDs. People wandering around within a few feet of our military. Who are actively trying to kill said military. Hmmm.

    Oh, and now we've actually got terrorists there, working to help destabilize the situation. Let's hope that none of the terrorists decides to trade a few hundred guns they don't need for some sarin gas the insurgents can't use safely, but the terrorists know a perfect little football stadium over in the US...

    Good plan there, thanks for that. For your next trick, you can resolve a hostage crisis in a fireworks factory with a rocket launcher while carrying 10 gallons of gasoline.

    Luckily, you are wrong about the WMDs, or we'd have even more people dead. I just find is absolutely surreal that 'Saddam did have WMDs, we just forced them into the hands of random, unknown people when we invaded' is some sort of defense of this increasingly indefensible war.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  76. All we were saying, was "give peace a chance" by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    If i dont let you peek into my home its beacuse i didnt agree to it as a condition of surrender.. Saddam did agree to this. When he started playing games its logical to asume shady activity was going on. Letting inspectors into specially 'cleansed' areas does not qualify as 'opening the doors' in my opinion. ( and many others ) Your opinion is worth diddly squat. The inspectors themselves had valid opinions that run contrary to your uninformed ramblings.

    He still deserved to have his country leveled in either case. Fuck you.
    About three hundred thousand people killed. What did THEY do to deserve being murdered?
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  77. Hey hey now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't blame the United States for allowing Bush to run amuck! I certainly don't remember him actually being voted in by the people in 2000, and by the time that the 2004 election came the US was already under the original version of the Patriot Act! The Patriot Act was reauthored to be more freedom friendly, though NOT removed in 2006 and what a coincidence... the Democrats won the House and the Senate afterwords. This is the time when you put on your tinfoil hats!

  78. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by SoulRider · · Score: 1

    Oh really? Then who are the architects of this disaster in Iraq?

  79. Hiding money by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    all of the secrecy can lead to corruption, as though it may happen. I'd argue that we're well past that point- the first sign that something is amiss is the unprecedented secrecy. The surveillance and other illegal acts are just window dressing. Actually, the secrecy is a sign of corruption.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  80. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by SoulRider · · Score: 1

    Ok, here is question for you. If China and Korea went to war but decided to fight that war on US soil, how would you feel? Think that would start a civil war in this country?

  81. Double dipping by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    You're right -- it's trollish, mainly because it's wrong. Go to fact check here for the actual truth. Cheney has received some deferred compensation and turned over a bunch of his stock options to charity. Apart from that, he has no continuing interest. He's working for Haliburton while getting paid by the taxpayers.

    How many no-bid contracts will it take to get that through your +1 Cursed Shield Of Mental Delusions? How many overcharging and tainted food scandals before you accept reality in place of your rosy fantasy?
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Double dipping by cfulmer · · Score: 1

      Realize that the article you're pointing to is about how a democratic senator is putting a different spin on what my linked article said. Even then, you got the accusations of YOUR article wrong. Factcheck.org is reasonably neutral. Frank Lautenberg, especially in the run-up to the 2004 election (your article is dated in 2003) is not.

      Cheney is performing any work for Haliburton. He has two potential financial ties: (1) he received stock options, the rights to which he has donated to charity (no tie there), and (2) he has some deferred compensation. The deferred compensation is money that Haliburton is legally obligated to pay him -- it's payment for services rendered in the past, not in the present. Even if Cheney were to start saying that Haliburton was the most corrupt company on the face of the earth, they would STILL have to pay him. The only out for them is going so far into the red that they're bankrupt.

      No-bid contracts were awarded for a lot of Iraq construction because (1) there are not many US companies who can do the work and (2) the bidding process more time-consuming than they wanted.

      I am not defending KBR or Haliburton's practices with regard to the war. All I'm saying is that Cheney had nothing to do with it. That's just left-wing spin left over from the 2004 election that's been repeated enough that people think it's true.

  82. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by SoulRider · · Score: 1

    ---- Booth was a patriot ----

    You do know Lincoln was a Republican dont you?

  83. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Tickletaint · · Score: 1

    Members of the administration as of 2003, by and large, and those who supported their efforts contrary to all confidential and publicly-available intelligence. Are you seriously trying to pin the blame for your little Middle East misadventure on those who were trying to restrain you from it?

    --
    Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
  84. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by SoulRider · · Score: 1

    No, that was the right answer. In the context of your post it sounded like you were saying something else since the parent you responded to said it was the White Houses fault. So it seemed like you were going down the "they are jealous of our freedom" path, and arguing with a post that basically said what you just said but with less detail, so I had to ask the question. Thanks for the clarification.

  85. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Tickletaint · · Score: 1

    Click "parent" on my post and you'll see who I was actually replying to. The fault lies with Slashdot's fucked-up, thoughtless design, which inserts my reply out of context unless you're browsing at -1. But what do you expect from a site designed by Linux geeks?

    --
    Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
  86. Interesting twist by jefu · · Score: 2

    For the the most interesting idea to come of this is that the government may be limited legally (increasingly not, admittedly) in the actions they can take directly, but may not be so limited if they hire someone to do it for them. For example, even if Congress gathers finds within themselves a bit of responsibility, ethics and manages to remember the constitution and the american people, and manages to restore Habeas Corpus and prohibit torture, the administration will probably just hire it out to "independent contractors" who, by being just that, independent, will not be subject to such laws. Make it all happen in another country (or a ship outside american waters) and Hey Presto! legal torture.

    Similarly, one can imagine contracting out censorship. The government itself may not be able to censor anything, but surely they could use black budgets to hire people (for example, the recently featured warriors for innocence) to do it for them, or even, one might imagine, paying CNN and Fox news to carefully pass over the kind of story that would give the government a black eye. And every time someone cried out "Censorship" people (you see it all the time here on /.) would say : "It isn't censorship if the government isn't doing it." And it wouldn't be the government, at least not directly.

    Even local governments or police departments might manage this. I don't think they can do it directly, but a bit of under the table funding for photographers catching people doing stuff that the local city administrators might find annoying (or even persuading some local rich person/company with the same kinds of interest to pay for the same thing) could go a very long ways.

    And no, this is not necessarily the kinds of actions I can only imagine a Republican administration doing. The Democrats are equally in love with power. And the libertarians would probably start with such actions - just cuz they fit in with their general philosophy.

    1. Re:Interesting twist by PPH · · Score: 1
      Interesting point. The fourth Amendment applies to the powers of the goverment, not of private parties. On the other hand, it is a felony to lie to federal officials. Unless there is the intent to commit fraud, no such prohibition exists between private parties.

      You need my Social Security Number for other than legally required tax reporting purposes? Sure, no problem. I've got a whole list of them. Pick one.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Interesting twist by leabre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The best way to shore this up, is, if a private contractor is operating on behalf of or under contract for the government, it then becomes subject to the constitution and the same restrictions the government itself is governed by. Otherwise, what you describe, seems like a very wide loop-hole to make corrup entities even more corrupt. And in this day and age where everyone can escape accountability except non-rich individuals, we need less loop-holes. While we're at it, lets restore the law so that the "spirit" of the law takes precendence over the letter of the law, then it can't as easily be exploited and debated over a typo in million page documents.

      Thanks,
      Leabre

    3. Re:Interesting twist by jefu · · Score: 1

      I believe it is already the case that at least some contractors working for the government are covered by the same rules as the government itself. That's why black budgets, high levels of secrecy, second hand contracting (the government contracts to company A and company A contracts to company B) and other steps would be taken both to hide the actions of the government and to put in that second level of distance.

      Doing this correctly allows the president (for example) to say something like "No US government people or funds are being used to ... " and be speaking a kind of truth. They would not be directly used.

      And given the actions of the courts recently, I suspect the courts would buy this indirection as a perfectly legitimate defense.

  87. Decisions and revisions which a minute will revers by jefu · · Score: 1

    Damn, meant to hit Preview, but hit submit instead. Lets see if I can post a (slightly cleaned up) revision to that.

    For me the the most interesting idea to come of this is that the government may be limited legally in the actions they can take directly, but may not be so limited if they hire someone to do it for them. For example, even if Congress finds within themselves their proper share of courage, independence, responsibility and ethics and manages to remember the constitution and that the american people are its primary concern (and not the american corporations) and manages to take the right kinds of actions - restore Habeas Corpus, prohibit torture, keep american soldiers out of a stupid war.... The administration will probably just hire all those nice things out to "independent contractors" who, by being just that, independent, will not be subject to the constitution and any laws applying to the government. Make it all happen in another country (or a ship outside american waters) and Hey Presto! legal torture and So Much More. Because it is not the government doing it. (On a similar note, there've been several stories recently about the government doing just that - hiring independents to try to destabilize Iran.)

    Similarly, one can imagine contracting out censorship. The government itself may restricted by the constitution from wide scale censorship (though they seem to do just that with impunity) but surely they could use black budgets to hire people (for example, the recently featured warriors for innocence) to do it for them, or even, one might imagine, paying CNN, Fox news, and similar organizations to carefully pass over the kind of story that would give the government a black eye. And every time someone cried out "Censorship", the courts and lots of people (you see it all the time here on /.) would say : "It isn't censorship if the government isn't doing it." And, of course, they're quite correct : it wouldn't be the government, at least not directly.

    Local governments or police departments might also manage this. I don't know that they can do it directly, but a bit of under the table funding for photographers catching people doing stuff that the local city administrators might find annoying (or even persuading some local rich person/company with the same kinds of interest to pay for the same thing) could go a very long ways.

    And no, this is not necessarily the kinds of actions I can only imagine a Republican administration doing. The Democrats are equally in love with power. And the libertarians would probably start with such actions - just because they fit in with their general philosophy.

  88. interesting choice of words by marms · · Score: 1

    abusive interrogations that have involved employees of private contractors operating in Iraq
    Hmm, "abusive interrogations" ... does this euphemism include the deliberate TORTURE and KILLING of prisoners? Sheesh, talk about purposefully choosing words to downplay our culpability ...
  89. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    His country ? HIS COUNTRY !?
    The 2006 estimate was that 26,783,383 people live in that country - did they deserve to have THEIR country leveled too ?

    Prick ! You know what's funny? That sentiment is 10% neocon doctrine. The citizens of the country are responsible for their leaders. It was the German people's fault Hitler had power, it was the Iraqi people's fault Saddam was there. Just imagine their bleatings of consternation if someone turned around and said they were just as guilty for supporting Bush. "But Bush is no Hitler!" they would shriek. Yeah, they're right at that: Hitler actually served his country in time of war.
    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  90. You offend and insult me sir! by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    I'm an old war-monger, but I ain't no dumb dogmatist like people who call old, ugly, bald-head and white-beard protofascist.

    Grow the fuck up kid we are all in this sinking ship together newborn, young, and old, also every German, Russian, Arab, Israeli, Japanese ....

    The only difference being that delusional dogmatist think they will survive or be saved by a god/satan/money. Who is killing your babies tomorrow depends on everyone, not just you or me. Politicians/corporatist/televangelist/... are plutocrats willing to see us all die a/o kill each other for their pervert agenda, entertainment, wealth and privilege.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  91. The USA and the PNAC by labnet · · Score: 1

    The PNACers used a hack I think you brief quip needs expanding.
    PNAC or Project for the New American Century, proposed originally to Clinton a new way forward for the USA, including; huge expansion of military forces, preemptive intervention to peoples & countries hostile to it and preserving an international order in the interests of the USA.
    Signatories to this include Cheney, Lewis "scooter" Libby, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz... pretty impressive and currently the core of the 'neo conservitave' bush Government.

    Iraq sitting on the worlds second largest oil reserves, challenged Americas future, as the USA needs to 1. To keep oil priced in US dollars to support it fiat nature, 2. Keep reliable supplies of oil.
    Saddam, who was originally an asset of the CIA (and attempted under guide of CIA to assassinate Qasim) was to be their 'puppet' leader in IRAQ, but Saddam was a naughty boy. Thus Bush snr went in to teach him a lesson. (You wonder why they didn't take him out back then) The lesson, was you will be like Saudi Arabia. But Saddam was not playing ball, so Bush Jnr needed a reason to go back, but how could they convince the American people, who really don't have an imperialist bent.
    They needed new 'pearl harbor'. 9-11 was that new pearl harbour. 9-11 truthers believe the neocons orchestrated this event (which I still have not made up my mind on), but regardless there was still no strong tie to IRAQ, but there was to Afghanistan, as they were harbouring Osama. Afghanistan was anther target of the neocons, because the Taliban would not agree to protect a UNOCALs proposed oil & gas pipeline. Now there are US bases conveniently placed along the path of the pipeline.
    As the previous poster had mentioned, it took a little longer to manufacture evidence and 'prepare' the American people for an illegal incursion into IRAQ.
    I think most Americans would be ashamed of the US govt increasing fascist world dominating behaviour, but there does not seem be a groundswell of discontent that would action any sort of uprising. Not that the US people could uprise now because of the clamp on your civil liberties post 9-11. What interesting times we live in.

    --
    46137
    1. Re:The USA and the PNAC by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      PNAC or Project for the New American Century, proposed originally to Clinton a new way forward for the USA, including; huge expansion of military forces, preemptive intervention to peoples & countries hostile to it and preserving an international order in the interests of the USA.

      What does any of that have to do with Clinton.

    2. Re:The USA and the PNAC by labnet · · Score: 1

      What does any of that have to do with Clinton. These was no implication that he did anything. Taken from wiki Open letter to President Clinton on Iraq On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political and military power.
      --
      46137
  92. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    No, it would start WWIII

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  93. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    "a surgical strike had taken out saddam and a few of his commanders"

    Sure, that would have worked if it was possible. But it wasnt or we would have done it. So, a large scale melting of the area is appropriate, would have saved countless American lives and served as a warning in the future.

    Making amends? for what? You cant compare our so called 'interference' with Saddams actions. So try again.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  94. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by BlurredOne · · Score: 1

    Do you honestly believe, that because you are an American, you and your country has the right to police the rest of the world?

    No country, no matter what has happened, deserves to be "leveled". Maybe Saddam was playing games. Maybe their were no WMD's. We will probably never know the entire truth, but regardless, that does not justify what the American government/military is doing to the people of Iraq. Their "beef" was with Saddam... He's dead, no more issue. Get the fuck out of there and let the Iraqi people decide what is best for their country, not some bible thumping moron from the south and his group of trained monkeys.

  95. Old news by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The U.S. government has been outsourcing intel work since at least the 1970s. They've also had problems with that outsourcing. See The Falcon and the Snowman.

    Cheers,
    Dave

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
  96. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    The right, but not the obligation, unless it interferes with our safety. .

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  97. This suprises anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like private industry hasn't been going bonkers for contractors and consultants for years. Why should the government be left out? After all, you don't have to pay them benefits, can let them go at anytime, and they don't have the same compensation/grievance rights as an employee. All the perks of an employee with none of the downsides. And it really wouldn't surprise me if most of the motivation for this intelligence isn't some insidious evil plot to replace everyone with unaccountable black hat henchman, but the illusion of saving money.

    After all, the downside of contractors no one seems to realize is they're not as loyal, often not as good at their jobs, and the enormous overhead in keeping working relationships, pay, and the damn contract straight is often more than what it would take to hire an employee. But that's all right, revenue based accounting will ensure we'll have enough funds for everything.......

  98. LOL, hey "pseudo freud" (got a phd in psychiatry?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hi there! Please seek professional help." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, @12:54PM (#19363933)

    Speak for yourself: Illusions of grandeur on your part thinking you are a professional shrink I see? And, lol, Oh boy - original reply on your part that one! Originality is not a strong suit of your type (limited to that kind of reply, which is the province of dolts with NO creativity):

    Your type of reply above, lol? It's the typical last resort of the loser usually, along with 'spelling & grammar checkers'... that post above?? It's not I, so you are WRONG, probably your usual, hence your stupid reply!

    (In fact - mods, let him know the IP's aren't the same on them, nor is my userid here, as I do not keep one typically or use it. Heck, that person you point to is probably not even NEAR in the same nation on a guess, & that proxies are not afaik, usable on /. (well designed, because I have tried to use them before myself here (full anonymous ones, won't work, good design here guys)).

    Well, that all said & aside? Here goes one reply, that ALWAYS SHUTS BOTH OF THOSE TYPES DOWN, FAST:

    A simple set of questions (& ones that ought to 'rattle your cage/shake you in your puny transparent game' here (because you won't have a suitable answer OR proof of one)):

    Got a phd of psychology/psychiatry to go with that advice? NO?? Didn't think so... Ok, then - How about one in forensics analysis (specifically of writing) @ least???

    What, nothing there to your name in the way of either of those types of degrees either??? Thought not!

    LISTEN: First of all - I don't take advice from quacks/sidewalk surgeon wannabe Dr. Phil's ok??? Drop the delusions of grandeur already there, you wannabe Dr. Ruth/Phil. Secondly: LOL, You don't have what it takes on your BEST DAY, period, to get the better of me or get my goat - but, you are making me laugh, because I want to see your answer here.

    Prove it you do have those degrees that I mention, because after all, you do have this opportunity to redeem yourself here! HOWEVER - Even if you did, who are you? The Lord Almighty, to judge me in ANY capacity??

    I.E.-> You don't pay my salary, you are not my employer, and not my wife - I don't answer to the likes of you, an unintelligent dolt living on somekind of illusion he is a psycho analyst or psychiatrist, on a forums board online.

    As an aside, after our amusements provided by the dimwit I am responding to here for laughs? This is to the mods & rest of the reading community here, inclusive of the wannabe shrinks like the one I quote above, & even the grammar/spellchecker trolls too:

    Man - the quality & intelligence (e.g. - A 10 below plantlife IQ is after me above, lol) of slashdot's 'goaders/trollers/harassers' is down lately... I am truly disappointed!

    Guys, you are letting me down, but more importantly, yourselves by looking like utter fools really! So - Brush up, get those degrees in the fields I note above at least prior to your pseudo Sigmund Freud attempts, lol... (somebody MIGHT listen then, but until then? I sure as hell won't, rotflmao!)

  99. Re:Corruption & CHENEY IS THE MASTER OF IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell you what: Sure, I'd "wash my mouth out" in it, for my profanities above but, it makes me ill to think about it, & quite furious actually!

    (Sure, I'll do that, but I demand to be able to spit it on those ripping us off 275 million a day, sending us off to get shot @ or die, & them trying to blame others for their inadequacies @ every turn (CIA gave us bad data,etc. to start this whole cost ineffective fiasco!))

    Hey - Let me spend just one day's worth of their personal monies on myself, you know? I wonder what those folks would think of that, additionally, ontop of that insult above - because @ 275 million a day? That is EXACTLY what they are doing to us, and killing our soldiers ontop of it... for what? KILLING?? There were no WMD's found, IRAQ didn't drive a plane into our buildings (Osama did)... I mean killing ontop of it being done in the name of LIES!

    Sorry - to me, I feel like I am getting RIPPED OFF in the process. So is anyone in the USA!

    Because that's what's being done to U.S. Citizenry, literally, & the literal amount for the price to this damn circus we pay for, every day.

    Let them see how it feels if I spent their personal cash @ that rate. And, top that off with let them go fight overseas themselves instead of us, the ones that pay the ticket for this madhouse show, because that is what it is: War? It is NOT smart...

    I say send the current leaders over there to do the fighting since they want a fight. WE are paying the ticket price @ 275 million a day, you are our civil servants, so go fight it yourselves. That should be our orders to them.

    Get one thing straight: THEY ARE NOT OUR BOSSES - we are THEIRS! Never forget that. Industry may REALLY own them, but guess what? We control elections as voters still hopefully, AND THE LAW SAYS THEY ARE OUR SERVANTS, not we, theirs!

    I don't know about you, but this "war for freedom" is all damn wrong, kills people, & costs a mint EVERY DAMN DAY!

    (Is this is the sane activity of a good leader? I think not.. do you spend others monies to blow shit up wastefully & kill others + base it on b.s.? I don't & wouldn't want to, & certainly not spend that much doing it because imo, it's just damn wrong (in other words, why the hell do it, @ all? It costs TOO MUCH!!!))

    It also all really makes me wonder, if Bush & Cheney themselves have ever been in a war, or even a real fight doing the battling themselves? Anyone who has that is normal, will avoid these things, because no real good can come of it, & it really hasn't to date.

    (People? If you've ever been to such things &/or had them happen?? You know what I am talking about & know what I mean here. Why avoid it? Because it's something to be avoided & FEARED, does nothing but damage, & is wasteful stupidity - illogical really ontop of it all!).

    Plus, hey: Haven't wars have historically created jobs? LOL, not with this one! It not like that @ all & instead has outsourced many jobs - people, our leaders are not thinking straight & not for OUR benefit is what this tells me!

    Hey, give ME that money? I tell you what I'd do - I'd rather make AWESOME JOBS for everyone!

    Hey - what that kind of scratch? I would for the hell of it, & could pull it off quite well - so could you, as that is a lot of money to work with.

    Sure - There would be some radical changes too. Like we'd only buy from our own for starters. Imports? What is that?? Pay people well instead, bring back jobs that got sent overseas, & people will spend if they have good stable steady jobs as well & buy products, THEY MAKE THEMSELVES HERE, again!)

    (As well as save too, & invest more, because they have the cash to do so!)

    Hey, nobody hurts that way! Not the big guys ontop of the foodchain that own the corporations (stockholders) & also, not the working man in the middle & bottom!

    (Everyone's happier!)

    Most people, imo? Just want a good paying job, & to create

  100. Re:Corruption & CHENEY IS THE MASTER OF IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    quote: "Well, ASIDE from the EMPHATIC shouting ;) I'd say that I agree with most of what you said" by Archangel_Azazel (707030) on Saturday June 02, @12:28PM (#19363739)

    Someone with some sense. Dream job - How would you like to have 275 million a day, & be given the responsibility inside a team that is out to create jobs with instead of a war? I'd love it. People have ideas for this (I even do, but they're radical but I know, they'd work! I don't get into detail about it enough below, but the broad strokes ARE THERE, keep reading)

    Top that off, with "stop the outsourcing" already! If today's corporations that do ANY outsourcings of jobs to outside the USA are not with that, since imo, THEY REALLY CONTROL THE POLITICIANS?

    Well, for one? That needs some change.

    I'd like to take that money (as government with others that feel as I do, since it makes a hell of a lot more sense than killing & blowing up others) & create competing corporations with it to those that do not like it if prosperity for all US citizens (those companies that outsource labor) is not the thing to do for all as a responsibility of one in government at the top, IN POWER!

    I wager they would HAVE to respond, they'd have to, positively, in order to compete & survive and the only stipulation for that would be that:

    1.) On gov't.'s part should be made a law to corporate bodies "stop outsourcing, or we will tax YOU to death for whatever gains you are making robbing our jobs from the citizenry here, and just use that money us, as the gov't. took from your gains, & give it back to the people & in turn, let them start companies with it that compete with you (think their employees would buy from those that outsource? I would not)... that, or you are not allowed to sell to us ever again, period!"

    2.) Should they continue to do so, in outsourcing our jobs, even after that? Label them as outsourcers, and have them pay an outsourcer tax.

    Jobs'll come back in a flash. Stuff like this HAS to take place, @ the top.

    Give us jobs, & the companies that comply would gain too, because you give people money to burn again? They will, for sure, and not to competitors of yours that may outsource still. Only those that create jobs here & do not outsource here, can sell here. Simple.

    Economies, imo, are just like an automobile's power train: You have to pour monies into it, fuel (put money in folks pockets to spend in large amounts again, for everyone, everywhere in this country) in jobs, and people will keep it running, themselves (they are the oil that keeps it running smoothly by being able to spend on tangible goods, and yes services (eating out for instance or films etc. whatever) in a way without burnout) & buy stuff like mad.

    This is self-sustaining & what it is ALL about.

    Producers/companies get their products bought, & consumers (all of us) will spend if given extra monies via good paying jobs to do so, buying those companies products in larger amounts.

    First though, you have to make the jobs, & NOT look for economies overseas, but right here, internally.

    Hey - The market's there (we are the largest consumer public)!

    Yes, the labor's there too (profits might have to be less or pay less initially per hour, like instead of making $35 an hour, you make $20. At least at the start, & at least jobs are created too, then you work hard to make a better product that outdoes the competition, at least as best you can try to do!)

    (Say, were you to start, say "N.Y. Motors" & "Virginia Motors" & as gov't. fund their startup, creating cars or whatever (just an idea, state by state or coast by coast, whatever fits a product's model best & start that new competitor that folks that work there, OWN!))

    This could be done with software too, & in a way? Linux proves it... think Microsoft is the ONLY company that can produce a good OS & such? Linux actually DOES prove otherwise.

  101. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    You cant compare our so called 'interference' with Saddams actions. So try again.

    Why not?
    He bombed innocent Iraqi civilians - we bombed innocent Iraqi civilians.

    The actions are very comparable, only the motives differ.
  102. "fictional" huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just because we didn't find them, doesn't mean they weren't there.

    to qoute a friend of mine in the intelligence specialty.

    "of course saddam has WMD's, we still have the F@cking reciepts"

  103. hmm... by webmonkey44 · · Score: 1

    This is potentially dangerous situation.

  104. Yes. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Contract firms are not chosen based on their performance. They are based on whose political friends happen to be in a position to profit from the giving away of tons of public money. When you add cronyism to the mix, your "competition breeds excellence" model falls apart. --Unless excellence refers only to the efficiency with which money is made, keeping in mind that the goal of most corporate entities is to make the maximum amount of money with the minimum effort. Quality of product might fit in there somewhere, but it's rarely the prime goal. Having pollical friends who will channel vast wealth to you while shielding you if you screw up for providing a shoddy product is a VERY efficient way to make money, and it appears to characterize a significant portion of the government model regardless of whether work is outsourced or not.

    I do recognize the inherent truths in your argument, however. The problem is having a pile of tax money to pay for the job and corrupt politicians who are in charge of dispensing it. If you remove corruption, then your model, which works on the principal of 'greed', would indeed work better. The problem is, corruption and greed are tightly linked if they are not indeed the same thing.

    So what's the solution?

    On this planet, there isn't a one size fits all answer. You need to make your own choices and live by your own rules of conduct, and move in circles which agree with those rules and stay out of circles which do not. In my circles, secrecy and manipulation are certainly not highly prized commodities. Honesty and personal integrity are.


    -FL

  105. It doesn't work like in the movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm actually one of those private contractors, working through a university. While there are some serious issues here, people also hugely over-estimate what the intelligence community is capable of. Consider the following limitations:

    • in my experience, at least 50%, and probably in excess of 75%, of those contractors are scam-artists who have a one-size-fits-all approach they will apply to anything you throw money at, and in a large number of cases those approaches were developed during the Cold War.
    • the world is a very complicated place, and even with large amounts of information there are still lots of ways to stay under the radar (tin hats and libertarian paranoia are not among them...)
    • the decision-makers, contrary to what they would have you believe, are individuals with the same cognitive limitations that everyone else has, and their handlers tend to make these worse, not better. The President of the United States is more like a helpless queen bee, surrounded by drones, than some omnipotent evil genius
    • the hacks and ideologues who dominate governments in general, and the current US government in particular, have little need or use for information: their mantra is "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."
    • the war in Iraq has effectively destroyed the US military -- they are going nowhere at the moment (well, at least the ground forces -- the Air Force and Navy can still do a lot of damage...)

    If you want a good sense of how you think the intelligence communities work compared to how they really work, just compare how well IT technology works in the popular fictional media (/. covers this regularly...) to how it works in your day-to-day experience. Its the same with intelligence. Sure, if these guys get on your case, you can have a really bad day, but the same can be said with respect to Mafia goons with lead pipes. In fact I'd far rather have the CIA after me than the Mafia.

  106. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by SoulRider · · Score: 1

    Then what gives us the right to fight our war in Iraq?

    I doubt it would start WWIII, but I suppose it would seem like that to you.

  107. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He bombed a few Iraqi citizens, Bush bombed a shitload of innocent Iraqi civilians. He also imprisoned hundreds of citizens of all countries, including the US for approaching a decade without trial. He tortured innocent civilians. I think Bush has less of a reason to exist than Saddam did.

  108. Re:Outsourcing is for secrecy, which means corrupt by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

    This post confuses me, how is this person retarded?

    Because the post belies a ridiculously simple-minded view of violence and alcoholism that makes me question their intelligence. Simplistic thinking such as "alcoholic == violent" and "violence + power == murderdeathkill" is simply idiotic and counterproductive. If you want to understand why Bush and his ilk believe what they do, it's important to do away with this simple logic and ridiculous hyperbole, and try to genuinely analyze why they do what they do.

  109. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    I've gotta say that's really just flamebait. People who think this should try getting their information from more than one media source at once-- or from non-media sources.

    Pot calling kettle...

    Talk to some of the guys who've been over there. The Iraqis knew we were coming. They had plenty of time to remove their weapons.

    This is one of the right wing's lamest arguments, somewhere between "cut and run" and the "he didn't want to scare the children" excuse for Bush reading My Pet Goat instead of getting on the phone with NORAD. Saddam hiding his WMD's in the face of an invasion is like a gun nut hiding his .45 and shotgun during a robbery because he doesn't want them to get stolen. It is just mindbogglingly stupid reasoning. We had weapons inspectors on the ground and while they were kicked out we still had satellite photos. If Saddam had tried moving his weapons, we would have known about it.

    I'm sorry, but you Bush bashers had me for a time, but there's simply too much greed in the world to believe CNN is really interested in reporting the truth.

    "Bush bashing"? Any American who is not appalled by this presidents actions either doesn't follow the news - at all - or doesn't deserve their citizenship. And CNN, are you kidding me? The network that has to have two ultra conservative voices for every moderate while giving right wing bigots like Glenn Beck their own shows? The network that carried water for the president all throughout the Iraq invasion? The network that has started calling those opposed to the war "the antiwar crowd"?

  110. Re:No "intelligence failure" for the spy boys in I by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    Thats not at all a comparison, and you know it.

    Okay, here's one: during military actions, the U.S. military routinely hits military and economic targets. What do you think the Pentagon and the World Trade Center are? By our own rules, the only people to have died from terrorism on 911 were those in the airplanes. How would you like it if Iran's military grabbed some of our soldiers while they were off duty and out of uniform, invented a term like "unlawful combatant", and kept them prisoners without a hearing or any rights? How about foreign governments waterboarding our citizens?

  111. Cheney still owns Halliburton stock by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    All I'm saying is that Cheney had nothing to do with it. That's just left-wing spin left over from the 2004 election Funny, you apologists were telling me BEFORE the fucking war started that Cheny had renounced all ties to Haliburton and that my predictions of no-bid contracts were liberal hate.

    But back to how your facts are, in fact, fiction:

    Cheney is performing any work for Haliburton. He has two potential financial ties: (1) he received stock options, the rights to which he has donated to charity (no tie there) He still OWNS THE DAMN STOCK, he just promised he'd give the profits to charity. He's getting hundreds of thousands in deferred payments AND his government salary, he needs the PR of charity more than the pre-war profits from his stock. His actions as Grand Vizier of the United States has led to his stock rising in worth by the thousandfold! You think his old buddies at his Clinton-era job won't want to thank him?

    Do you think he's planning on staying in the Oval Office for the rest of his life? He's going to need another job in 2009, will you stop deluding yourself when he moves to Dubai then?
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:Cheney still owns Halliburton stock by cfulmer · · Score: 1

      "The Raw Story"?? Please -- why not just cite directly to the Hillary Clinton's blog?

      Executive stock options are an odd thing because they are generally not transferable. So, technically, you're right -- he still technically owns them. However, they are subject to a trust agreement that provides that their proceeds, upon sale, will go to GWU Hospital's Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming and Capital Partners for Education. (Since they're just options, he doesn't get dividends.)

      The point is that he doesn't get any of the benefits of ownership -- he will be in exactly the same position if Haliburton does well as he'll be in if Haliburton tanks.

      I don't think Cheney is going "to need another job in 2009." He's got a heck of a lot more money than Bill Clinton did when he left office.

    2. Re:Cheney still owns Halliburton stock by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The point is that he doesn't get any of the benefits of ownership -- he will be in exactly the same position if Haliburton does well as he'll be in if Haliburton tanks. FactCheck: Yes, Cheney has received $2,000,000USD from Halliburton.
      FactCheck: Yes, Halliburton got $7,000,000,000USD in no-bid Iraq contracts.

      You think he forgot his friends?
      Or that he didn't take office for the express purpose of conquering Iraq and changing their laws so Halliburton could profit from their oil?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...