Originally posted by LA TimesPresident Bush has ordered what may be a major expansion of the CIA, calling for the beleaguered agency to add thousands of analysts and spies as part of an ongoing buildup in the war on terrorism, according to a White House memorandum released Tuesday...
...Bush instructed the intelligence chief to increase the number of analysts and spies at the CIA by 50%. The figure stunned current and former intelligence officials, several of whom said the CIA had not charted such an aggressive course of growth since its inception after World War II.
Although it seems like listening to the employees they do have would be a better idea...
Originally posted by NewsdayThe U.S. government knew of an imminent plot to oust Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chávez, in the weeks prior to a 2002 military coup that briefly unseated him, newly released CIA documents show, despite White House claims to the contrary a week after the putsch.
Yet the United States, which depends on Venezuela for nearly one-sixth of its oil, never warned the Chávez government, Venezuelan officials said.
At a White House briefing on April 17, 2002, just days after the 47-hour coup, a senior administration official who did not want to be named said, "The United States did not know that there was going to be an attempt of this kind to overthrow - or to get Chávez out of power."
Yet based on the newly released CIA briefs, an analyst said yesterday that did not appear to be the case.
"This is substantive evidence that the CIA knew in advance about the coup, and it is clear that this intelligence was distributed to dozens of members of the Bush administration, giving them knowledge of coup plotting," said Peter Kornbluh, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive in Washington.
Let's see...imminent plot against the government of an oil-rich country...Bush administration gets a warning, doesn't mention it...coup goes down. Why is it the international community doesn't care too much for us these days?
Yeah, but then again the international community is filled with hypocrites who will like us one day, when we go along with them, and hate us the next when we don't. Can't say that I blame them for looking out for their own best interests, though.
You're justifying this by saying the rest of the world is fickle? It's just the last in a very very long line of coups against left-wing leaders that has either been turned a blind eye to or actively supported by the US.
Originally posted by Famous MortimerYou're justifying this by saying the rest of the world is fickle? It's just the last in a very very long line of coups against left-wing leaders that has either been turned a blind eye to or actively supported by the US.
The rest of the world is fickle.
And of course we don't want Chavez in power. The guy publicly praises Castro. The last thing any of us need, even the Europeans, is more socialism/communism/thug government. And Chavez is pretty certainly a socialist and a thug.
I know you all think it's immoral to want to keep steady access to oil, but without it, we don't have heat, electricity, transportation like ambulances, etc.
There's a difference between not wanting someone in power and not respecting the fact that they are. Chavez was elected fair and square.
I don't want Bush in power. But I certainly wouldn't tacitly support a coup against the legitimately (well...whatever) elected leader of the country. And if I did I also wouldn't expect America to like it or take it lying down.
Not supporting "Thugs" is a ridicuolous. Chavez is no more a thug than 100 different US-supported dictators throughout history. Chavez publically praises Castro? Do you know some of the people US-supported Middle-Eastern dictators publically praise? And considering Chavez socialist policies are pretty much in line with many of our European allies, I don't really think it's so awful. We're pals with plenty of socialist countries. It's not a dirty word, it's a different choice of economic systems. If the people elect a socialist government fair and square that's their choice, not an affront to the natural capitalist order or anything. I can't say that wanting the people of his country to benefit from its natural resources instead of rich businessmen from other countries is so awful.
Is it immoral to want to keep steady access to oil? It depends on the means you use to keep steady access, same as anything else.
(edited by MoeGates on 25.11.04 1609)
(edited by MoeGates on 25.11.04 1610) Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe. - Euripides
Although I agree with the rest of your post, it is very highly debatable that Chavez would have survived the recall referendum if it had been a level playing field and if the votes had been accurately counted. Unfortunately, there wasn't a true audit after the referendum, so we'll probably never know.
The concern about Chavez is not about socialist policies per se, but on pursuing Castro-esque policies which could turn Venezuela into another Cuba. That is my concern.
I think the race card is horribly misplayed here, but does anyone think this comment is appropriate? I find the term "extremist" to be rather distasteful and less than illuminating, but I'll accept it as part of political discourse.