Author
|
Topic: Daily Kos: Kos Worked for CIA
|
|
|
|
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474
|
posted 12 August 2007 02:52 AM
First off, 'interesting' source.Secondly, I don't know why anyone's surprised that he's not 'anti-imperialist'. From what I understand he's pretty nationalist, and like the average mainstream US liberal, or US Democrat thinks the Bush Administration, US conservatives, and the Republican Party are so incompetent that they're hurting the national interests of the US. Relating to that, thirdly, I know he's a former Republican military man so it's not as if he's ever presented himself as particularly left wing or as it relates to this issue or had an aversion to US-ian government institutions that promote US-ian interests. I just think he's so ardently anti-Bush, etc, and such a partisan Democrat, that people overlook the fact that he's moderate in a US sense, somewhat conservative in Canadian eyes. I think the major problem with Kos is that he's simplistic. If anyone were to read his diaries, and compare that to the other major contributors, well lets just say that there isn't much of a comparison. Usually all he does is quote some information, and has a few somewhat predictable replies. Fourthly, this is a bit off topic, but Howard Dean was brought up in that link. Howard Dean, like Kos, wouldn't put 'very liberal' on his profile, or at least left-wing. It's just like Kos, he's a bluntly anti-Bush partisan Democrat.
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535
|
posted 12 August 2007 05:38 AM
I don't understand how Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is a hypocrite. Besides Markos has always been open about his past, his service and his political leanings He, like many Americans, is a citizen that became disenchanted, and he matured. When presented with new facts and insights into his government and military he changes his mind on the issues. Isn't that what a citizen is supposed to do? Is there a rule somewhere that states a person has to deny the facts and stick with a position and be loyal to a political perseptive their whole life no matter what evidence is presented? Thank goodness he was in the military and worked for the CIA I say, it gives him insight and perspective he can share with other citizens. I don't think he should be condemned and demonised, he should be encouraged to share his insight so we can all get a better, factual understanding how things worked. Thank goodness there are citizens that are engaged, attempting to keep their governments acountable. [ 12 August 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]
From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108
|
posted 12 August 2007 06:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire: This doesn't surprise me in the slightest and in fact, he still may be an asset. Disclosure: I was in Army Intelligence (spare the jokes, I've heard them all ) and take it from me, you can leave Intel, you can leave the DIA (up to a point) but you never completely leave the CIA. You carry with you certain legal obligations your entire life.
Sounds fairly standard. When I was with an "Establishment" upon my departure, my "de-indoctrination" included a written undertaking not to discuss any work related thing I heard, seen or did during my three years with them, until age 83. Curious, I inquired why 83, but no one knew, it was written in an obscure act or regulation. The best someone would offer is that perhaps people would think that at 83, it could be passed off as senility. You're right though, some strings are never completely severed, there's always an intimate connection where lines are never crossed and things are never spoken about. The laws barring disclosure are restrictive and quite unforgiving.
From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|