Unsurprisingly, perhaps, some of the few signs of intelligence in our government are emerging from the intelligence community.

While everyone is quick to point out that the resignation of Rand Beers is not directly related to the Iraq campaign, it has given lots of people the opportunity to express their "concern" with the direction the laughably entitled "war on terror" is taking. From the UPI's coverage of Beers' resignation:




Should Beers resignation be seen as a promising bit of dissent from within? Should the fact that others are using Beers' resignation as an excuse to air their own concerns finally cause the Executive to re-eaxmine its priorities? Does the Bush administration even care that many of those best placed to address the threat of terrorism feel that the Iraq campaign is not a good idea? Or is the White House right to ignore the CIA and the NSC and instead trust, uh... whatever it is that they're trusting?

Having read the entire article, I see nothing new. I don't think anyone doubts that this war will temporarily increase the chances for terrorist attacks.

The good news is that we finally have leadership that is willing to look beyond the short term (spelled, their own term in office) and take the steps needed to help insure the long-term safety and security of our nation and all freedom-loving people in the world.

I can't follow the link. Could you please tell me who Rand Beers is. All I can make out from this is he's some thing to do with America's war on drugs.

Sorry. Beers has been the National Security Council's senior director for counter-terrorism since last August - and has served on the National Security Council for Presidents Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Clinton.


Keep believing it. There are none so blind...

Sorry, MftM, but there is no debating articles of faith. It is, of course, impossible for you to back up such astronomically speculative musings about the motives of any member of the Bush administration - and it would be no more profitable to discuss the good intentions of George W Bush with you than to discuss the existence of the tooth fairy with a three-year-old. Please stop trying to pass off your highly personal beliefs regarding the divinity of the annointed Bush as some sort of political fact.

Some truths are self-evident. At least to those whose bias doesn't block their vision.

Awful hypocritical don't ya think Wertz? Your posts are often riddled with personal opinions and beliefs. Are you the only one allowed to do so?

***********

I've never liked resignation as a form of dissent. Dissent is fine and is one of the things that makes this country great. However, by resigning, you are giving up your "no" vote. Rather than voice your opposition, you would silence yourself and not have a voice at all.





Where did the CIA come from? Would that be some of your personal beliefs being slipped into the converstation?

I highly doubt Bush is ignoring everyone who doesn't agree with him. And I firmly believe that not EVERYONE in the CIA or NSC is against this war. Those who agree with Bush are probably silent publically, for fear of being labeled a war-monger.

Question: Who places/appoints the position of Mr. Beers? Does the pres, or is he promoted within? I wonder if he will be replaced with someone who is more of a "yes-man".

I guess that is what happens when you give up your "no" vote :/ thats too bad really.

--cheers

As far as losing a "no-vote" goes, I'd refer to a quote frequently attributed to Stalin:

"It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes."

Votes don't matter much if the people counting them are going to either disregard them or call for a recount until they get the answer they want... upon which ceasing all further recounts.

And while Wertz might have perhaps mixed some personal feelings and opinions into his argument, the CIA is hardly one of them. The CIA has, since October of 2002, opposed any action in Iraq, citing their position that such action would encourage terrorism, rather than discourage it. They didn't just do this with memos or anonymous statements from officials to the press, but in direct communication with Congress.

Clearly, the CIA, Beers and those who resigned from the British Parliament don't agree with action in Iraq. Despite their positions and almost assured access to the latest information, their "no-votes" have gone largely unconsidered and unheeded. Whatever information they have, they don't seem to agree with the official handling of it and have respectfully decided not to participate with action they don't support.

Beers hasn't necessarily resigned in response to action in Iraq (as included in the above statement)... this is still speculation. News sources have thus far only cited "personal reasons" for his departure

No, of course not. You're being silly - and taking the opportunity to launch a spurious attack. Obviously, I state opinions - we all do. That's kinda the point of this forum. But not many of us try to pass off our opinions and beliefs as facts - as MftM does here. That's all.


No, that would be a reference to the article to which I linked and which was quoted immediately above my statement being slipped into the conversation. As a refresher for your reading comprehension skills:

As to your disagreement with resignation being an ineffectual form of dissent, I would agree overall. However, as the Bush administration doesn't seem to pay much heed to anyone who disagrees with anything they say or do or any action which they take, I doubt it makes much difference in this case.

We can conduct ourselves without getting the snide personal remarks in, right? Because if the answer is no I will close this.

ROFL. Wow, what a great quote. No argument there



Publicly...no. How do you know what he does and doesn't say in private? There is no evidence that he has not listened to the opposition.

The opposition...for now...is the minority. Last time I checked...majority rules.

--cheers

A very interesting argument, abs. I suspect that you mean to allude to the 2000 election here, in which case it was the democrats following this precise strategy. I am not aware of a single official count that named Gore the winner. I am, however, aware of many claims put forth by the Gore campaign attempting to recount until they got the 'right' result.

If I am wrong in my suspicion, I of course apologize.

I don't trouble myself arguing over the 2000 election and I made no allusions to the election. IF I did, let me know. I made a reference to votes after somebody else already brought up the subject of votes (people with their "no-votes"). I responded directly to a comment made on this forum and a quick review will reveal as much.

...and from DP:


I would simply offer another quote:
"The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities." -- John, Lord Acton
A majority vote does in this case rule, but I would encourage you not get too caught up in a "might makes right" mentality. It's very unbecoming of a civilized society.

I hope your not refering to the American vs. Iraqi military conflict. Cause we have plenty of threads about that already.

Might makes right? Of course not. But I do kinda get fired up about voting..or a lack thereof as the case may be.

- I always encourage people to vote. Deep down, it disturbs me when people don't.

- It ticks me off that votes are being blocked in the Senate re: federal judges. Blocking votes is like blocking democracy...goes against everything we stand for.

- It ticks me off that people would rather quit and give up a vote, than fight the good fight and vote no.

*** This is NOT the thread to debate issues I have just discussed. I am simply clarifying my position on voting, and how much it means to me, and my country. Take your issues with my arguments to another thread please ***

If I gave you the impression that "might makes right" then my bad. That was not my intention. I just wanted to say that majority rules. If Bush isn't listening to the opposition, than that is his mistake. A good leader should take everything into account before making a final decision.

--cheers

Abs, Please provide a source for your statement

"their "no-votes" have gone largely unconsidered"

Rather than go back and edit the original post (since there have already been replies), I'll mention here that it was supposed to read only "unheeded." They likely were considered, as I realized, but given the action being taken, they have gone unheeded. Apologies for not catching my error before and hope this clears it up some.

Edit: And no, DP, I'm not referring to the current war being waged in the Persian Gulf. If I'm referring to something, I'll do it directly. I'm not dancing around the 2000 election or the current conflict here... I was just making a statement. Take it as it stands.