Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Only in America. Intelligence agencies' only job is to keep us safe. Why attack them and put them on the defensive? Crazy ain't it?

Only in America. Intelligence agencies' only job is to keep us safe. Why attack them and put them on the defensive? Crazy ain't it?

Posted - January 5, 2017

Responses


  • When were they actually doing it that?
    Was it when they were just spying on every Americans data and phones?
    Collaborating with the drug cartels?
    maybe when they were off planting the seeds of conflict in foreign nations to cause unrest and war.
    When they helped Osama Bin Laden?
    Oh I know,  in  Nicaragua back in the 80's.
      January 5, 2017 8:27 AM MST
    0

  • These are the same people who said that Hillary Clinton was proven to be quilty of the charges brought against her then said that she wouldn't be prosecuted. How can they be trusted if they don't do their job?
      January 5, 2017 10:05 AM MST
    1

  • 3934
    No, that's not how it works. The field agents present their findings to PROSECUTORS, who then decide whether the transgression (if any) is worth seeking criminal prosecution. As tends to be the case with all law enforcement officers, FBI field agents tend to believe anyone they are investigating is guilty. That's why we don't have cops prosecute cases.
      January 5, 2017 10:07 AM MST
    0

  • True, but you left out one important part.   The cops are usually held accountable when they are convinced they have a strong case and just decide not to seek prosecution because " Hey, well they didn't mean any harm or were ignorant to the law about it".

    People can debate whether she would have been found guilty or not all we want but the fact is clear she was protected by the DC elites and heads from ever going to court. Which kind of suggest she probably would have not been in good favor since the question isn't answered and is a stain on her in and of itself.  If she was that innocent and would have been cleared then a trial would have been in her best interests as well her party's.  A liberty no regular citizen would have ever been allowed.  Is she the first? No.  Will she be the last? Doubt it.

    Not to mention the public was given the smoking gun evidence that she sent emails that she shouldn't have.
      January 5, 2017 10:19 AM MST
    1

  • 3934
    @Glis -- Stripped of context, I have little dispute with your post.

    However, reinserted into context, my retort is "GET A F***ING GRIP!" Within the context of all the "high crimes" committed by our Ruling Class just within the past 2-3 presidential administrations, HRC's e-mail issue fall somewhere around 8,652nd on the list of issues over which our leaders need to be held accountable.

    Let's prosecute those who authorized torture, domestic spying, the intelligence "stovepiping" leading to the invasion/occupation of Iraq, the illegal assassination of Osama bin Laden, the outing of Valerie Plame, etc., etc., etc. (not to mention Trump's numerous problems will illegal chartiable foundations, fraudulent universities, bogus tax deductions, illegally trading with Cuba, etc.) whose crimes are FAR FAR WORSE than anything HRC is accused of. Once we've dealt with all of them, THEN we can worry about HRC sending out a few e-mails which, as far as anyone has publicly presented, caused NO HARM to US national security.
      January 5, 2017 10:39 AM MST
    1

  • Yes, YEs, YES!!!!!!!   Let's do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I'm with you on that too.  To hell with all these people and their little BS organizations and councils.
      January 5, 2017 10:42 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    You and I can lead the revolution, comrade!....;-D...

      January 5, 2017 10:46 AM MST
    0

  • Meh.   Che Guevera was a sociopath along with his heroes.   I see that solution akin to replacing the arsenic with cyanide.

      January 5, 2017 10:53 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    I was 99.44% kidding about Che (I'll grant 0.56% because he did have legitimate beefs about US imperial domination of Central/South America).
      January 5, 2017 11:38 AM MST
    0

  • 46117
    This is the same percentage that Ivory Soap claims is pure soap whatever that was supposed to mean in the first place.

    In popular culture
    1898 advertising poster
    Milliken, a New York City neighborhood, became known as Port Ivory, Staten Island, because of the P&G factory that was a landmark there from 1907–1991.
    As early as the 1920s, Ivory Flakes soap powder was used to create home-made "snow" for Christmas decorations.
    "99 and 44/100% pure" are the words spoken by Willy Wonka on opening the factory door in the 1971 film, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.
    Before becoming a pornographic actress, Marilyn Chambers was a model for Ivory Snow. The producers of the 1972 hardcore film Behind the Green Door used Ivory Snow's "99 and 44/100 percent pure" slogan to advertise the actress' appearance in the film. The controversy helped to boost tickets sales for the film.[8][9]
    Parodying Ivory's slogan, John Frankenheimer titled his 1974 film 99 and 44/100% Dead.
    In 1974, American country music singer Ronnie Milsap had a hit single composed by Eddie Rabbitt entitled "Pure Love." In an obvious reference to the Ivory soap slogan, the lyrics contain the line "99  44⁄100 percent pure love." This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at January 5, 2017 11:52 AM MST
      January 5, 2017 11:49 AM MST
    0

  • I know you were and he was pushed towards it by the scenario you stated. 
      January 5, 2017 12:00 PM MST
    0

  • 3934
    The NOMINAL mission of America's National Security State is to keep America(ns) safe.

    It's ACTUAL function during its post-WWII history has been much less noble, particularly in the area of implementing intelligence operations (e.g. fomenting the coups in Iran, Chile, South Vietnam, etc. The examples are legion) and domestic spying.

    While I believe most individual members of the National Security State either believe they are serving a good cause, or are just doing their jobs, at the higher levels the NSS is just as self-interested, bureaucratic, and politically-motiviated as any other branch of government (or any other large institution).

    Trump's recent allegations of NSS malfeasance may be off base, but some skepticism of the NSS is almost always warranted.
      January 5, 2017 10:13 AM MST
    1

  • 22891
    it sounds crazy to me too
      January 5, 2017 1:56 PM MST
    0

  • 1523
    Sure is.
      January 5, 2017 3:25 PM MST
    0