Over at HuffPo, Alec Baldwin, (of the “Film Actors Guild”) speaks out on what’s wrong, and what we need to do about it. One of these is real, and one is a line from a puppet movie. Can you tell which is which?
Quote #1: “By following the rules of the Film Actor’s Guild, the world can become a better place; that handles dangerous people with talk, and reasoning; that, is the fag way. One day you’ll all look at the world us actors created and say, “wow, good going, fag. You really made the world a better place, didntcha, fag?” “
Quote #2: “There is an answer to this problem. There is a way to defeat terrorism while building new and better alliances in the Arab world. It will be an enormously complex and difficult diplomatic puzzle. But the first step might be oddly simple. Get rid of the CIA, which has outlived its usefulness and is an embarrassment to this great country, and rebuild and reform US intelligence capabilities to fight this new type of threat. I think our hopes must begin there.”
Post your answer in comments; no fair using IMDB. But if you want to see the film again, I’d say go for it. I think we’ll watch it again tonight.
That’s hilarious, Marc.
I know that Baldwin suggested #2 recently…it was on the AP newswire.
Is this your way of disagreeing with his suggestion?
What I have yet to understand is why _anyone_ pays attention to _anything_ these folks have to say.
Their entire world is one of illusion, and they get paid rather well for their ability to draw people into an illusion. Image, pretence, suspension of disbelief …
IOW, nothing REAL. Their comments on the real world, therefore, are utterly meaningless and without value.
I’m sure Andy X that Alec Baldwin agrees with Liz Hurley that ordinary people are tiresome and it’s better to only associate with fellow celebrities.
Baldwin’s a certifiable idiot.
Is he still here? Didn’t he promise to decamp to Canada if Bush was elected?
#2 from Andy X: “Is this your way of disagreeing with his suggestion?”
I think that’s a good question.
If the CIA should be abolished and replaced, it’s true whether Alec Baldwin says so or not.
Also, movie actors have as much right as anyone else to speak their minds. This is the blogsphere, where your credentials are the quality of your arguments and the merits of the evidence you link to.
Really, for Alec Baldwin to urge the dismantling of intelligence capabilities is almost too apropos for words.
But the language gives it away too easily…. all the FAG references make it a slam dunk.
The rest does sort of have an eerie similarity, though.
The answer is #2, because to Alec Baldwin a “fag” is a New York hansom cab driver, and he would never suggest that people who mistreat horses by hitching them to buggies are making the world a better place.
I don’t know if Bennett or Baldwin got it wrong, but the great Jeanne Kirkpatrick, whose shoes Baldwin is not fit to have fetish fantasies about, was a Democrat when she served in the Reagan administration.
Actually I think he promised to get fat and become more annoying. But thanks to this rumor, Canadian immigration authorities are now authorized to wear sidearms.
Ho hum. At least he didn’t say, “Get rid of Israel.” Besides, he might as well have said, “Get rid of the moon.”
Afterthought: in saying that anyone, including members of the Film Actors Guild, should be respected in the blogsphere if their arguments and evidence are reasonable, I did not mean to imply that Alec Baldwin performed respectably on either count on this occasion.
But when Nicole Kidman got scores of Hollywood signatures on a good statement against Hezbollah and Hamas’ terrorism, I liked it. I didn’t say that regardless of whether it was right or wrong it didn’t count because Hollywood people were saying it.
Really, for Alec Baldwin to urge the dismantling of intelligence capabilities is almost too apropos for words.
except that isnt what Baldwin said…
Here is what he really said “Get rid of the CIA, which has outlived its usefulness and is an embarrassment to this great country, and rebuild and reform US intelligence capabilities to fight this new type of threat”
And while I disagree with Baldwin that the CIA has “outlived its usefulness”, on a cost/benefit basis dismantling it and reforming and rebuilding our intelligence capabilities is certainly worth considering. (Sort of like when Carter eliminated CETA programs — while they weren’t working the way they were supposed to, they were providing a useful service — but the costs weren’t worth the benefits.) This is especially true given the way the CIA has been both politicized and marginalized within the much larger “intelligence capability” framework. Dismantling the CIA would be a powerful symbol acknowledging the errors of the last six years — albeit one that misplaces blame for what has been happening.
bq. _Also, movie actors have as much right as anyone else to speak their minds. This is the blogsphere, where your credentials are the quality of your arguments and the merits of the evidence you link to._
Absolutely, but as I see it the quality of one’s arguments is generally defined by either a) proximity, or b) expertise. Preferably both, well-filtred through sound logic. Michael Yon has both when writing from Iraq. Baldwin has neither.
Baldwin and the others from the entertainment side of the ledger are counting on their _celebrity_ to carry the weight of their often-embarassingly-weak arguments.
What a sad commentary on early 21st Century America that such a large percentage of people under 40 seem to exist either to entertain or to be entertained. Something will snap us back to seriousness of purpose, but we aren’t there yet.
Baldwin and the others from the entertainment side of the ledger are counting on their celebrity to carry the weight of their often-embarassingly-weak arguments.
mcuh the same thing can be said for our political leadership as well — the difference being that embarrassly weak arguments based on ignorance from political leaders carry far more weight because we assume that our political leaders are knowledgeable.
But when Bush decides to invade Iraq without having the first clue about Sunni/Shia factionalism, and the new head of the House Intelligence Committee is making recommendations about what to do about the “war on terror” without knowing that al Qaeda is exclusively Sunni and considers Shiites apostates — well, lets just say that giving Alec Baldwin a soapbox is far less of a problem.
Actually the nub of the Baldwin quote that amused me was “There is a way to defeat terrorism while building new and better alliances in the Arab world. It will be an enormously complex and difficult diplomatic puzzle.”
Note that it is only a diplomatic puzzle…that’s because the best way to deal with the world is one “…that handles dangerous people with talk, and reasoning…”.
And Baldwin certainly has every right to his views, and to use whatever tools he has – celebrity, proximity to the media, whatever – to get them heard.
Just as we have every right to mock him when his points miror Trey Parker’s so closely: “…that handles dangerous people with talk, and reasoning…”
And while reforming the intelligence operations are a good idea, what do you think our international capabilities for intelligence gathering and covert action would be like during the period between abolishing the CIA and building it’s new cruelty-free successor?
A.L.
Hey, Baldwin wants to get rid of the CIA? He’s in pretty good Neocon company then!
I’m starting a new scale here, and I hope the few left leaning – or even reality leaning guys like talkhalus, who are center shading right –
Called the Raise Irrelvant Stupid Issue to Belittle Liberals Excuse. Or RISIBLE
Where a score of 10 would be criticism of some random student at UC Santa Cruz mouthed stupidity, broadened and generalized to discredit all liberals everywhere as “American haters and terrorist supporters”.
In this case, the irrelevance of a Baldwin quote – gets you at least 4. Then you add the lack of historical context – not reminding readers that quite a lot on the right say demolish the CIA, and not providing any personal context.
That adds 1 more.
Then of course, using a favorite right carictature – namely “stupid liberal Hollywood”.
That adds another one.
So the RISIBLE scale for this post, seems to be 6 out of 10 – at the highest..
But it might be higher or lower 5 or 7. Other thoughts?
As an aside, it’s always humorous how the supposed “liberal” of WOC, always uses the time-tested propaganda methods of the right, and the same targets.
Quite telling.
But of course, this is old hat – now I’ll set you guys off again – we are well aware of Armed Liberal’s False Consciousness, so it isn’t a new phenomena.
#11 from Bart Hall: … “Absolutely, but as I see it the quality of one’s arguments is generally defined by either a) proximity, or b) expertise.”
I have another opinion. And in any case, Alec Baldwin has just as high a military rank and just as much experience (say) in bloody combat against jihadists as I have.
–
#13 from Armed Liberal: “Actually the nub of the Baldwin quote that amused me was “There is a way to defeat terrorism while building new and better alliances in the Arab world. It will be an enormously complex and difficult diplomatic puzzle.”
Note that it is only a diplomatic puzzle…that’s because the best way to deal with the world is one “…that handles dangerous people with talk, and reasoning…”.”
I agree: that part was key, and very silly, and right out of Team America: World Police (2004).
–
#13 from Armed Liberal: “And while reforming the intelligence operations are a good idea, what do you think our international capabilities for intelligence gathering and covert action would be like during the period between abolishing the CIA and building it’s new cruelty-free successor?”
Very poor. Much worse even than during the further five years George Tenet testified the CIA needed to get back up to speed.
But, if radical reform is needed, when is the right time?
I have always defended, and still defend, Donald Rumsfeld pressing ahead with fundamental military reform though we are already in a war and many people say that what is needed is more troops (and, implicitly, never mind Donald Rumsfeld’s technological revolution).
We are fighting an extremely serious war in slow motion. If we take advantage of that, we can upgrade our capabilities radically while pressing on, not for free but I think at a reasonable cost. That is the Rumsfeld way and I think the right way. If needed reforms are always kicked down the road because the needs of the day are always deemed too pressing, then we get the bad side of the slow motion war. We are hurrying to nowhere, and in terms of its slow operational pace Al Qaeda will soon be able to exploit that.
The performance of the CIA does not seem to be good. Its institutional culture seems flawed. It has proved non-responsive, and instead of picking up its game it has lobbied against President George W. Bush in an astonishing way.
George W. Bush’s diplomacy has sometimes been ill-advised, for example in (eventually) putting too much emphasis on weapons of mass destruction as a key rationale for removing Saddam Hussein. Who provided the advice? The CIA. This was supposed to be a slam dunk.
And even if you think George W. Bush should take more of the blame than the CIA, he will soon be gone but the lame old CIA will still be here.
Joseph Wilson’s trip and the Plame affair is evidence – I think overwhelming evidence – that the culture of the CIA is not good. This is not professional, non-politicized, high quality intelligence work. This is a flawed culture that has proved non-responsive to reform.
If you have a CIA, you might as well accept realistically now that it is the kind of organization where people feel entitled to pull stunts like this. Is that good enough?
I don’t know what is behind that, but I have to suspect people in the CIA want political patronage because the quality of what the agency produces is not good enough if you look at it non-politically.
I can see why George W. Bush gave everybody a free pass after 11 September, 2001. It was all hands in deck. But the result is that America will enter 2009 with the same non responsive intelligence agency.
Maybe the best we can do is press on with the CIA. I’m not saying that’s a stupid opinion. After all, America has not been hit again after 11 September, 2001, except by instant jihadists, and that you can’t stop with any intelligence agency, since the only “network” is Islam itself.
But neither is it a stupid opinion that the Americans should clear out the Augean Stables of an intelligence agency that neither the Left nor the Right likes, or trusts to be expert and non-political.
Even if Alec Baldwin says it.
Sharon Bridger: “We’re the CIA, something always goes wrong.”
…
General William Devereaux: “The CIA didn’t know the Berlin Wall was coming down until bricks started hitting them in the head.”
– The Siege (1998)
Really, is Hollywood so wrong about that?
#16 from Davebo:
What I have yet to understand is why anyone pays attention to anything these folks have to say.
With Alec Baldwin I don’t know, excerpt for those for whom he is the world’s greatest actor; but with Nicole Kidman – if she’s talking or just wafting in front of cameras in a pretty dress, I notice. Is there a mystery about that.
People love stars, and naturally pay attention to them and even pay to see them. There’s a huge industry based on that.
hypocracyrules –
Well, I thought I was pointing out an amusing individual foible rather than tarring the whole left with the Team America brush, but if the shoe fits…
…and yes, there is a basic issue in that many on the left believe that – as Matt Yglesias does – if we all talked, if the US joined the ICC, things would be just grand. Unfortunately, I’m not convinced of that; I think there is a large and somewhat powerful group of people out there who intend to get what they want by talk, and if that doesn;t work by violence – and who intend to privilege their violence by lying about it when they talk.
They want us to talk to them because we don;t want them to hurt or kill or bother us in any way. Personally, I’d rather they were motivated to talk to us because they didn’t want us to hurt or kill or bother them. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one.
A.L.
I say
funnystupid stuff all the time. Where is the AP at to quote me? Do I really have to be a bad actor to get my views on politics heard nationally? I should have went to school for theater arts instead of political science. I guess that makes sense.You know, since theater arts = politics.
I’m going to have to say that is probably the smartest thing Alec Baldwin has ever said. The CIA is an embarassment. We should shut the agency down, take the good parts (like the CTC, that Jack Bauer guy kicks serious butt!) and put them into a functional agency, and, yes, reform our intelligence community to make it one that has the mission of protecting the United States, not protecting the inteligence community.
I don’t know why people don’t think that Alec Baldwin is an expert on this stuff. He did, after all, play CIA analyst Jack Ryan in _The Hunt for Red October_. Doesn’t that experience qualify him on matters of intelligence?
Wow, AL, thanks for, ah, clarifying the issue once again.
First of all, where do you get the idea that Matt Yglesias and the “left” believe that diplomacy will make everything “just grand”? Are you seriously trying to argue from such a shaky foundation of what can only be described at this point as a willful misrepresentation (or worse, misinterpretation) of a political viewpoint that many, but not all, on the left AND right share…namely, that skillful diplomacy is a critical and important tool in foreign relations and component of domestic and international security that should be neither over nor under appreciated?
I think a Bush supporter such as yourself must be given to dismissing the importance of diplomacy at this point, since this administration has hit a new low in this arena…they’ve done nothing but undermine or destroy the alliances and treaties (ABM, Geneva) that took decades of hard, honest work to construct and which have served us, and the world, well. (Not perfectly, mind you, so please, all, hold the bullcrap rhetoric.) This kind of thing is just too hard for “shoot from the hip” Bush. The man you voted for long after there was ample evidence to most of the rest of the world that things would lead to where they are now both here and abroad.
Second, I see now that you are clearly in the “playground bully” camp of foreign policy: Fear is the best, maybe only, motivating factor, especially for those “dirty arab barbarians”. How utterly juvenile and simpleminded….or perhaps it is a symptom of an affliction that seems to strike so much more commonly on the Right…that of believing your opponents must, should or do think like you do.
(Actually, I’ve heard a similar theory about the left which is supposed to explain why we argue less effectively in the public sphere…we also assume wrongly that people view things like we do…rationally.)
It boggles the mind that people are still thinking this crap after the total and complete collapse of this approach in the recent 6 years, from 9/11 to the Mess-o-Potamia. So many instant Arab Psychoanalysts seem to have been created magically in the past few years..its truly amazing.
I should think it goes without saying that individuals’, groups’, and nations’ actions are governed by a complex set of factors that cannot simply be reduced to “survival”. I think this might be even more true for terrorists who are willing to die or their cause….how do you think the “Shock and Awe” approach is supposed to work in this case? Invading Iraq was meant to deter Al Qaeda, in your mind? Funny how it did exactly the opposite…not funny, really, sad, because I knew it would devolve into this from the beginning. Heck, the first time Bush openend his mouth while campaigning in 1999 was all the evidence I needed to think that if the clown ever got elected we’d be in big trouble…and now it happened twice, and even I didn’t imagine it couild have gotten this bad.
Finally, as a general comment, I find it especially amazing that you can hold such shallow and unenlightened positions even while going through all the motions of someone who is allegedly trying to give some thought to the issues (“I’m working on a lengthy piece on Alec Baldwin….sorry for the delay” and such). I shudder to think what comes out of your head and mouth when you don’t have at least the buffer of having to write it down and re-read it (although again I don’t get the sense you do to much self-editing either).
Yawn…time for bed.
Actors are paid, professional liars. Their job is to convince you while playing a part that they are someone other than who they really are.
Alec Baldwin?
The dude who played “The Shadow?”
Really?
People pay attention to him?
That’s kind of bizarre.
I hate to say it, but I think I actually agree with him. While I have the utmost respect for what the operational arm of the CIA did in Afganistan, I think the analytical side of the CIA is a joke and an embarrassment to the US. They have relied way too much on technology at the expense of actually spying, been overtly political, and worst of all, been consistently wrong.
In other words, they have become a typical government bureaucracy. We desparately need something better and maybe starting over is not such a bad idea.
Does anyone else have a better idea?
Andy X writes:
“I think a Bush supporter such as yourself must be given to dismissing the importance of diplomacy at this point, since this administration has hit a new low in this arena…they’ve done nothing but undermine or destroy the alliances and treaties (ABM, Geneva) that took decades of hard, honest work to construct and which have served us, and the world, well. (Not perfectly, mind you, so please, all, hold the bullcrap rhetoric.)”
Actually Andy, the *ahem* rhetoric can be found in your comment. This view of yours of the Bush administration’s diplomatic efforts is really just the opposite of reality. Certainly, your examples are nonsense as the ABM treaty had been a dead letter for at least a decade before George W. even took office. And the greatest damage to the Geneva Convention is being done by people who don’t understand its reciprocal nature and merely use it as a partisan weapon against the Bush administration.
But the real claim that the Bush administration does not use or is destructive of diplomacy is just demonstrative of an ignorance of the accomplishments of the last 5 years. Through diplomacy, the Bush administration has achieved a disruption of terrorist funding networks worldwide that is simply unprecedented. Before the NYT decided to blow a successful program for absolutely no news value, there was international cooperation on surveillance of financial transactions through Europe that was a magnificent achievement. The starvation of Al Queda’s funding network was the most important work done in the last 5 years, at least as important as removing Afghanistan as a sanctuary. The Bush administration has obtained active cooperation of former Warsaw Pact nations and many of the ‘Stans of the former Soviet Union.
And lastly, the conversion of India from a “nonaligned nation” that was actually nearly a Soviet ally and active opponent of the United States in South Asia to a close ally of the United States was completed by the Bush administration.
Ah… pussy diplomacy.
Of course Baldwin hates the CIA. He hates anything to do with intelligence, something he utterly lacks.
Alex made both statements.
Next…
Wow…the second one is nuttier than the first one! They’ve always said that truth is stranger than fiction (or Baldwin).
Count me against the CIA, too. Ya see, the CIA is full of assholes. And W. puts up with their shit because he’s a pussy. Now, Arec Bardwin is a dick, and if W. lets him get too close, then he’ll get fucked. But Bardwin is still right that the assholes in the CIA should get fucked, ’cause otherwise they’ll keep shitting all over everything.
I think that the CIA is as useful and informative as CTD’s post (#31).
Let’s face it. The CIA is a broken agency. No less a figure than Pat Moynihan suggested abolishing too, if perhaps for different reasons than Baldwin.
In fairness to Baldwin, he does say we should “rebuild and reform US intelligence capabilities to fight this new type of threat”. At least he acknowledges the threat.
Here, on the left, is the guy who DID get rid of the old (rough & ready) CIA. His name is Frank Church, you should look him up. Anyway, he looks like Alec Baldwin, so, something is afoot maybe.
#21 … but didn’t he once stay at a Holiday Inn?
I’d file this under the heading “A broken clock is correct twice a day.” In today’s world I think the NSA is probably a much more important agency for our nation’s security (it’s a lot bigger, and not nearly as many people even know about it). Also, I don’t know if the CIA will be able to re-task their human intelligence networks to be able to combat the new threat (although I might give them a few more years).
There was an American official that, just before the belated US entry into that war, said “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail”
He basically dismantled the entire intelligence network in the US
Dismantling and discarding the CIA would do just that
Yay! We’ll start from scratch and dismiss all those nasty spooks who work at the CIA
Or we could just ensure that everyone owith any decision making power is asleep at the switch (I am looking at YOU, Clinton!)
Or this leftist I met in university said, “there would have been no WWII if Britain had followed the policy of strong appeasement with Germany. The Allies caused WWII by adopting a policy of aggressive diplomacy and self-determination” (no, she wasn’t joking…)
To quote Arec Bardwin: “Wow, good going, fag. You really made the world a better place, didntcha, fag?”
This so-called actor said he was going to leave the country if Bush won the Presidency.
So – he lied to us.
Why would anyone give this so-called actor any credence whatsoever since he can’t be trusted to tell the truth?
I can still remember the day the Blackhawk helicopters came to my village…and the sound of my pet goat calling “Alllec”.
The problem with all this CIA bashing is that 90% of what the CIA does never gets told to the general public. Only the f***ups make news so, the public naturally gets the impression of a feckless, wayward agency that never gets anything right.
You’ve got to have good information to make such a weighty decision. Nobody posting here has any real clue about the CIA’s overall performance or, if they do, they can’t say anything about it on an open forum. We have no choice but to rely on our elected representatives who are in the loop to police the Agency and make decisions on when and if it needs a major reorg. Not Alec Baldwin. I never voted for that guy.
Why not abolish the CIA? Name one significant world event the CIA had us well prepared for. Name one reason that covert operations and intelligence gathering should be run by the same agency. Name a reason why intelligence gathering shouldn’t be a military responsibility.
Gutting the CIA and putting its remnants under the Pentagon as an adjunct of the Army sounds like a good plan to me. We’ have a lot easier time getting translators and Special Forces on target.
Hah, you can’t fool me, Armed Liberal. Alec Baldwin isn’t real in the first place?
Let’s face facts here. Baldwin is just one of a steadily growing number of elitist blowhards who make their living pretending to be people they are not, investing themselves in an alternative reality and moral relativism while believing that Hollywood is a political party.
And they wonder why box office takes are at an all time low over the last six years?
We wouldn’t need intelligence reform if people like John Kerry weren’t spending their entire congressional career trying to defund it as well as the military and people like Jamie Gorelick weren’t building walls between intelligence and law enforcement to divert any possible investigation of the Clintons going after their political enemies, said wall being one of the reasons 9/11 occurred.
Finally, there’s only one way to deal with Islamic terrorists who aspire to a global totalitarian theocracy via the savagery they are famous for. Kill them all and let Allah sort them out. You can’t negotiate with fanatics who revere death in the same way that the civilized world reveres and respects life and who believe that God wants them to kill innocent civilians. Forget the diplomacy crap. Just take a look at N. Korea. There’s a perfect example of what “diplomacy” will accomplish. Left to their own devices, liberals will eventually get us all killed.
And for you BADLIBERAL, why not abolish the UN? Name one security council resolution over the past 20 years that they’ve actually enforced while they’ve been spreading disease, raping, selling kids for sex, putting the food resources out on the black market and pocketing the money, pillaging and ravaging citizens of countries the blue-hats have been sent to during their so-called “humanitarian” efforts.
Way back when, on the threshold of Bush I’s Gulf War, years prior to the Internet someone asked El Excellente, “Sir– have you ever received timely and usable CIA Intelligence that was not commonly available elsewhere?”
Standing tall, Bush I responded, “No.”
After WW II, the CIA was founded as a clearing house to coordinate Wild Bill Donovan’s OSS with Hoover’s notoriously sub-rosa, blackmail- and extortion-prone FBI. (Remember how, on Hoover’s sudden death, his “close companion” in dead of night spirited away several foot-lockers of “confidential files” dating from FDR through Kennedy to Jimmeh Carter?) What happened, naturally, was establishment of a $40 billion bureaucratic overlay, which most recently maligned and sabotaged its wartime Commander-in-Chief while unabashedly confirming that for $40B it had recruited no –none, not any– local-language field agents anywhere in the Mideast at all (!).
Domestically, Bush II appears a feckless do-nothing, unwilling to take on any serious opponent. Over sixty year,the CIA (sic) has proven itself far worse than useless. Not quite to Kofi Annan standards, but they’re working on it. Bag the whole sad-sack lot, and while you’re at it, “reform” the State Department by reducing its doofus personnel rosters 75%.
Easier, politically, just to ignore these twerps on a Chief Executive level. As Bush II found with Colin Powell and with the Plame Affair, however– under official cover, they will sell you out. Better to hit ’em first.
Oddly enough, I had been thinking the same thing about Hollywood. We need to get rid of everybody in the movie business, who have outlived their usefulness and are an embarrassment to this great country, and rebuild and reform US moviemaking capabilities to fight this not-so-new type of threat, that of really bad (dare I say faggy?) movies. With Bush in charge, the average American is in more danger of being suffering permanent damage from going to the local multiplex than he is of getting hit by terrorism on these shores.
The scariest thing is not Bland-win, er BALD-win’s remarks, it’s the lap dog responses at Huff and Puff’s Log. America is in for some tough times ahead.
If the CIA is part of the problem, then it is self-evident that it must be fixed.
If it is so broken down and dysfunctional as to be not only useless, but dangerous (and there’s some recent evidence in support of this), then it must be torn down and rebuilt….just as one would a condemned building in a busy neighborhood.
That is what this debate would be focused on from the outset if it were presented by a serious thinker…such as many of the commenters here on this thread, regardless of political affiliation. Unfortunately, the initiator of said thread, AL, is not among that group, and consequently I think his views are an order of magnitude more worthless than even those that he would himself ironically dismiss on the same basis, such as Alec Baldwin.
I am beginning to think that calling oneself a “Liberal” while producing such a constant stream of fluff and illogic can only be explained by a desire to discredit Liberals in general.
Well, I’m actually in favor of getting rid of the CIA and reconstructing our interrigence agencies, too. But probably not in the way Arek Balwin means. After all, I’d like an intelligence service that doesn’t destabilize our own government, to start with.
Andy, the thread isn’t a serious policy discussion about whether and how to reform the CIA (although such a thread would be an interesting one – I would be genuinely interested in how you – for example – would see such a thing being done. Write somehting up and I’ll even put it up as a guest post.); it was an ‘amusement’ as Graham Greene called them.
And, like his amusements, it does have a serious core. Just don’t take it too far, mmmkay?
A.L.
Out in the Light:
We can’t abolish the UN, but we could certainly stop paying dues, withdraw our support, and establish a League of Democracies. I wouldn’t just vote for that candidate, I’d work my ass off for that candidate.
At least he didn’t propose a bipartisan commission of pensioners to study the problem.
Of course we can. We can stop being the major funder of that asylum and kick them out of the country. If they want to have a UN that is nothing more than a haven for dictatorships and has the sole goal of residtributing the wealth of the US to every thrid-world shithole on the planet…let me have it in Paris. They’ll LOVE this bunch over there.