[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

First, your band width here is too brief to clearly understand. I don't know if you mean the sheep who responded to the current polls, or the sheep at the time of 9/11.

I was referring to the sheep at the time of 9/11, the point being a lot of people simply believe what they're told.

Second, your point, whatever it is, is irrelevant. Regardless of which sheep to which you are referring. And it doesn't matter whether they thought Saddam was involved or not. Or whether they cherished somewhere deep in their patriotic soul that old American motto "Don't tread on me." Or if they thought that Bush was responsible for 9/11. Or if they believed that politicians are all a pack of cowardly liars, and that it was the sheepdogs in the CIA who abided by a code of honor, duty bound, to protect them at all costs when the wolf was on the attack. I don't know what exactly, or by what number , they thought, other than the results of the poll. The point of linking the article is simply that most Americans are on the side of what the CIA did. And, surprise, surprise, they are more disturbed by what the sheep in the Senate investigation did than what the CIA did.

Happened upon this and think they have a good point.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/...editorial.html

Personally, I am a sheep who is glad that it backfired on them. I think that a lot of the crap that comes out of this administration and its henchfolk is half policy and half wag-the-dog in order to take the heat off of a current "scandal." Notice how the Gruber lying and corruption involved in passing the ACA is completely forgotten now? Not just a musty week or two "old news,"--just gone. And, I'm sure, Spence, that is just fine with you. It's "smart."

The Gruber thing passed because beyond arrogant remarks there wasn't anything to it. He even went before Congress and Issa couldn't lay a finger on him.

I don't think our sheepdogs should have to be secretive about what they do. As I've said before, as a nation we should be open about what we will do if we are attacked. No matter how harsh, swift, or devastating, we should forthrightly let it be known exactly what we will do in response. And we shouldn't hedge. We should have already established a reputation that we carry a "terrible swift sword" to use against those who threaten us, as well as a generous helping hand to those who support us and hold our founding values.

We are increasingly being tested now, to see how far we will go to protect our turf or support our allies--as in the Ukraine, and in North Korea's hacking as well as its outrageous threat to our free speech by its threat against Sony. We shouldn't have to be backed into corners where we appear weak and vulnerable. If we had that strong face to the world, militarily as well as economically, and had established it to the point that an enemy would, with certainty and swiftness, receive whatever destruction it wished to impose on us, I think we would have less trouble with the rest of the world, and wouldn't have to pretend about having some "high ground."

A limiting factor here is our position as global cop which creates complexities others don't bear. Additionally the technical, economic and social considerations of a more globalized world provide a dynamic for which we have yet to find a balance.

Simply carrying a big stick doesn't cut it any more. Jeb is going to have to deal with this just like Obama has.

I think honesty is one of the highest grounds. When the "high ground" forces you to deception, to be clandestine, to lie, in politics and war, then the "high ground" itself is a ruse, and an excuse to bludgeon your political opposition with the phony lie that you are pure and they are not.

And that's exactly why the torture issue is so important.

Did you see Cheney on Meet the Press last week? What a joke. He's still lying about it.

Hope this hasn't been too long for you.

I made extra coffee.