not picking a fight.

Thank you. I'll strive to be as straightforward.

Stop lying. You know full well that the CIA overthrows governments. Iran is one case in 1953, and there are plenty of cases in South America. -- Mike Sulzer

What you really mean to say is that the CIA facilitates other people overthrowing governments. A subtle but important distinction, and as such it follows a tradition of history.

There are lots of ways to do this, all the way from Radio Free Europe, to arming "rebels". Some turned out badly, some turned out well. Are you suggesting that we abandon the field entirely and let some other power dominate?

"Millions for war, murder, and torture; but not one God Damn cent to help the needy"...

...I claimed that was the slogan of the USA. How can that be "lying"? Even with your taking it out of context it sums up the USA.

That's the usual word for saying something emphatically, that isn't true factually or in practice. Some might call it hyperbole, but since this is so effervescent "lying" is a better word. That is of course, unless you actually have some evidence that is legitimate rather than just foam.

It's my mistake thinking your post was other than yowlping. So sorry, feel free to ignore my posts in the future. Heh.

Ignoramus perhaps, instead?

there is a new presidential finding allowing the CIA to kill and murder at will inside Iran

I have to assume that if anyone dies for whatever reason, without this finding the CIA is liable for prosecution. Even for self-defense. From the article....

As far as the C.I.A. was concerned, the former senior intelligence official said, “the over-all authorization includes killing, but it’s not as though that’s what they’re setting out to do. It’s about gathering information, enlisting support.” The Finding sent to Congress was a compromise, providing legal cover for the C.I.A. while referring to the use of lethal force in ambiguous terms.

To me that doesn't look like "kill and murder", but then, I've read the whole article.

"Millions for war, murder, and torture; but not one God Damn cent to help the needy"

Oh. So you were just using a rhetorical device that you didn't mean? You know, lying?

I mean really, did you believe that Saddam had toy airplanes that could deliver nukes and take out Atlanta? No, really --- did you?

Or something equivalent to 9/11, or worse? Absolutely. But then I was living within sight of the towers. I presume you don't. More importantly two days after 9/11 78% of a Washington Post poll thought Saddam did it. It will be interesting to see what implications that has for you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

The central government will not even feed the homeless vets in the cities, much less fed the needy. To pretend that the USA's imperial government cares for the underclass is to live in a delusion.

Central? You're going to base your statement on disregarding the primary delivery sytems of state and local feedings? How deceptive. Just like changing "one cent" for "doesn't care". Tsk.

BTW, why did you pick a handle that normally signifies a murderer? A bit odd, is it not?

Only for one who can't think "outside the box". Never played basketball, drunk a shooter, photographed, shot 9-ball, a round of golf, or practiced archery? Tsk. Tsk.

Equally the same justice meted out to the Nazis should be that which must be meted out to Bush and cronies. Or is his allowing of genocide in Iraq a lesser crime than drowning, shooting and gassing millions of Jews in Europe? I would suggest the same fascist mentality lies at the heart of Neocon thinking as it did with the Nazis, except that the Nazis never got to quite dominate the world!-- Eucalyptus

You are an ugly, ugly, person.

The police have a right backed up by law to investigate a meth house. Where is Bush's right to invade Iran?

Invade? as in fullfledged war? Or the normal operations of clandestine agencies? I'm on record as to being opposed to a fullfledged war in Iran. OTOH I'm all for clandestine operations as part of diplomacy. It's also called investigation.

Oh, and the law? That's represented by the finding presented to the gang of eight. If that's a problem, don't vote for Bush this November.

Take Ahmadinejad out and you've not really hurt Iran at all.

Quite so. Surely you don't think you're the only one to consider that? But all that is just one possibility, there are lot's of functions, not the least of which is getting a true picture of Iran's nuclear capability. Don't you think THAT'S a good idea?

The US CIA has no business in Iran picking fights. Just like they had no business in Iraq helping Saddam with poison gas and how to improve their 'kill rates'.

the whole idea of "covert" operations is to do something WITHOUT picking a fight.

Would you be flacid with your many guns and stashes of ammo?

I don't own any guns, or any ammo. The best offense I can muster is a steak knife or a 5-iron.

And isn't it interesting that the prime sourcing is retired military generals just like the ones GG rails against? Not to mention all the anonymous sources. It would seem the sainted Hersh is no different than all the other reporters in DC.