PDA

View Full Version : Moore vs New CIA chief


ChrisLove
08-13-2004, 06:49 AM
Someone just sent me this, its pretty funny.

Its about an interview with the guy who Bush appointed head of CIA in March conducted by Micheal Moore. In it the dude says he is not capable of running the cia!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3560484.stm

TheWedge
08-13-2004, 06:53 AM
I just read that on CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/13/moore.goss.reut/index.html
It's pretty funny, for sure.

The funniest part is the Bushies interviewed calling THIS slanted, when it is, in fact, the man's own words.

100% ILL
08-13-2004, 08:21 AM
To me it sounded like he was saying he wasn't qualified to be a field agent anymore. I seriously doubt when Moore posed the question he meant. Do you think you'll be director of the CIA? Mabey the dude wasn't self confident. Mabey he just didn't want to tell Moore. To simply write the guy off as a buffoon now that he has the job is a little presumptious.
Besides, I don't know many army Generals who could strap on a 110lb ruck sack and march 20 miles. T
he leader has to be knowledgeable and know how to implement the resources under his charge. Not be Jason Bourne in a three piece suit at age 65.

TheWedge
08-13-2004, 08:29 AM
Yeah, but being basically, admittedly computer illiterate?
And saying ""I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably,"
That sounds a bit beyond "field agent" requirements, IMO.

I'm not saying that he's necesarily unfit. But come on. You gotta see a bit of humor in that at least. Which is what I look to Moore for.
I doubt MM could have picked a better person to do the job, but that doesn't make his comments any less funny.

Ace42
08-13-2004, 09:10 AM
Not being able to speak Arabic is not of vital importance in a top role, that's what translaters are for. However, when he says "Arabists" he does NOT mean "merely operatives that speak arabic" - There are numerous "arabist" positions in the various diplomatic communities that, while they specialise in middle-eastern affairs, which don't require you to be able to speak it. Basically, if you disregard the speaking arabic section, what he means is he has no formal training or education in the Middle East. So, basically, he'd not be able to find Tehran on a map most likely, let alone tell you about the up-to-the-minute political climate.

Now, ask yourself this, who do you think the best choice for the position it; someone who concentrates on European diplomacy, an area that is not real of major concern to the US in terms of terrorism (although the US illegally spy on numerous European countries, so it is not without precedent) - or someone who has at least a passing aquaintance with contemporary Middle Eastern affairs?

What he is saying is tountamount to "Well, hopefully I'll be able to learn on the job. I already know what Fox news has told me about Saddam, Al Qaeda, and all the other Arab countries!"

Hardly likely to be openminded is he? Thus, quite possibly doomed to repeat the failings the former US intelligence community made RE: 9/11 dash war in Iraq.

Echewta
08-13-2004, 09:17 AM
Generals may not be able to strap on gear and run 20 miles but they had to to get to be a general in the first place.

:rolleyes:

TheWedge
08-13-2004, 09:19 AM
Not being able to speak Arabic is not of vital importance in a top role, that's what translaters are for.

I was presenting the quote as a whole. Maybe I should have taken out the part about "speaking arabic". I just didn't want to use ..... for some reason.
My point was the cultural background comment. :)

D_Raay
08-13-2004, 11:12 AM
Just another tool for the administration to prop out there. They don't want people to think that only a select few guys are overseeing everything. They want not so bright guys running departments.

100% ILL
08-13-2004, 11:35 AM
Just another tool for the administration to prop out there. They don't want people to think that only a select few guys are overseeing everything. They want not so bright guys running departments.

I'm sure you're right. I'm certain president Bush picked the dumbest,most unqualified man for the job so he could screw up and further smear the credibility of the intelligence community.

TheWedge
08-13-2004, 11:37 AM
I'm sure you're right. I'm certain president Bush picked the dumbest,most unqualified man for the job so he could screw up and further smear the credibility of the intelligence community.

Maybe he did it so HE wouldn't look so DUMB in comparison?
:p

Jasonik
08-13-2004, 11:55 AM
We wouldn't want to misunderestimate the new CIA chief, now would we?

TheWedge
08-13-2004, 11:58 AM
We wouldn't want to misunderestimate the new CIA chief, now would we?

Why not? Did he "misunderestimated" himself in that interview?

100% ILL
08-13-2004, 12:03 PM
Why not? Did he "misunderestimated" himself in that interview?

Mabey it's all part of his plan :rolleyes:

LIMERICKFILE
08-13-2004, 12:06 PM
Maybe it's like "The Tortoise and the Hare". He's starting out slow, keeping a steady, unorthodox pace. Next thing we know.....BOOM, he'll whoop the shit out of those liberal bunnies.


He's just taking it slow, you wait and see....

100% ILL
08-13-2004, 12:18 PM
Maybe it's like "The Tortoise and the Hare". He's starting out slow, keeping a steady, unorthodox pace. Next thing we know.....BOOM, he'll whoop the shit out of those liberal bunnies.


He's just taking it slow, you wait and see....

I wouldn't think the head of the CIA would be to concerned with "whooping liberal bunnies"

TheWedge
08-13-2004, 12:20 PM
I wouldn't think the head of the CIA would be to concerned with "whooping liberal bunnies"

That's EXACTLY what you are supposed to not think!
:D

100% ILL
08-13-2004, 12:24 PM
That's EXACTLY what you are supposed to not think!
:D

Oh I see.......I think :D

LIMERICKFILE
08-13-2004, 01:25 PM
haha, you guys are catchin' on now! rock! (y)

Bob
08-13-2004, 02:34 PM
no, that's the FBI's job LOL