The NY Times continues to peck at the most transparent Administration in history:
U.S. Is Still Using Private Spy Ring, Despite Doubts
By MARK MAZZETTIWASHINGTON — Top military officials have continued to rely on a secret network of private spies who have produced hundreds of reports from deep inside Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to American officials and businessmen, despite concerns among some in the military about the legality of the operation.
Earlier this year, government officials admitted that the military had sent a group of former Central Intelligence Agency officers and retired Special Operations troops into the region to collect information — some of which was used to track and kill people suspected of being militants. Many portrayed it as a rogue operation that had been hastily shut down once an investigation began.
But interviews with more than a dozen current and former government officials and businessmen, and an examination of government documents, tell a different a story. Not only are the networks still operating, their detailed reports on subjects like the workings of the Taliban leadership in Pakistan and the movements of enemy fighters in southern Afghanistan are also submitted almost daily to top commanders and have become an important source of intelligence.
The American military is largely prohibited from operating inside Pakistan. And under Pentagon rules, the army is not allowed to hire contractors for spying.
Military officials said that when Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in the region, signed off on the operation in January 2009, there were prohibitions against intelligence gathering, including hiring agents to provide information about enemy positions in Pakistan. The contractors were supposed to provide only broad information about the political and tribal dynamics in the region, and information that could be used for “force protection,” they said.
Fortunately it is neither George Bush nor Richard Nixon running a secret war and violating an ally's border.
And the larger issue is that the program does provide valuable intelligence.
This sounds like the sort of program that Candidate Hope and Change would have railed against in 2007. I guess we will find out how his energized base likes it now.
Minus 13 at Raz today.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 17, 2010 at 09:59 AM
Good read at WSJ (no firewall) about why increasing tax rates does not increase government revenues and why debt will be greater than projected.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 17, 2010 at 09:59 AM
"I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking..."
That's rich...from the party afflicted with diarrhea of the mouth.
Doers vs. Pontificators
Intentions over Achievements
Fine words over Hard Action
Posted by: Janet | May 17, 2010 at 10:00 AM
So lefties are clearly responding to the factual evidence that Obama is, in fact, right of center on foreign policy.
What the evidence shows is that he's to the right of Noam Chomsky, Robert Scheer and Cindy Sheehan. So?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 17, 2010 at 10:03 AM
The Laugher Curve, right, Iggy?
==============
Posted by: I'm laughing all the way from the bank. | May 17, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Bunkerbuster, conservatives have praised Obama's foreign policy from time to time when the policy has been consistent with what conservatives have been articulating. See the LUNed article for an example.
You obviously are a thoughtful individual who disagrees with most of the opinions of most JOMers on the substance of policy. Instead of snarky comments that are ludicrous on their face (such as your "A good sign that there [sic]opinions weren't based on facts on the ground to begin with" comment), why not challenge us on the substance? I would think that you are intelligent enough to become bored over time with lib snark.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | May 17, 2010 at 10:12 AM
DoT:
What the evidence shows is that he's to the right of Noam Chomsky, Robert Scheer and Cindy Sheehan. So?
I read bb to be saying that Noam Chomsky is the de facto leader of the Democratic party.
Posted by: hit and run | May 17, 2010 at 10:14 AM
from the party afflicted with diarrhea of the mouth.
MTP needs a massive ingesting of Pepto-bismal when Schmucky Sleaze joins the silver haired idiot in the LUN. Or maybe radiator sealer.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 17, 2010 at 10:14 AM
Obama's Hawaiain records claim he was born in 1961, but the Selma march took place in 1965.
Shrillary claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who, at the time of her birth, was an anonymous beekeeper in New Zealand or where ever. It was years after her birth that Sir Edmund climbed Mt. Everest.
Chalk it up to lefties being self-aggrandizing liars.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | May 17, 2010 at 10:15 AM
I wanted to post this link again.
As Janet says:
"Fine words over Hard Action."
This is what my boss used to call "Hurry up and wait."
Bunker, I just have not seen the actions that have ever matched his words.
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Scheer, Chomsky, Rich - are we creating a list of the stupidest lefties in the world? They are among the top, but why would we bother?
Come on out for vacation Janet. We canceled our wine-a-month from CA last week and told them why.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | May 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Bill in AZ, do you know of a web site that links to Arizona business sites? My three kids have birthdays coming up and I would like to order their presents from Arizona businesses. I would love to be part of a "reverse boycott" (folks buying from Arizona businesses who ordinarily wouldn't).
Posted by: Thomas Collins | May 17, 2010 at 10:19 AM
It's kind of self selecting, Bill, now the first two are evil, the third is just clueless, although those are not exclusive
categories
Posted by: narciso | May 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM
I would think CA would have a whine-a-minute club.
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 17, 2010 at 10:21 AM
--Being right of center on foreign policy would mean.....--
I'm not sure how to define right of center foreign policy.
Kennedy and Johnson escalated in Viet Nam while Nixon de-escalated, went to China and pursued detente. FDR and Truman pursued total war in WWII while Truman and Eisenhower pursued a much more limited war making strategy in Korea.
Kennedy ran on closing the missile gap and Reagan simultaneously built up our nukes while offering to ban all ballisitc missiles as long as we built SDI.
In the past both those somewhat left of center and those right of center had generally agreed that foreign policy at its most basic was a means to advance the interests of the USA and to protect it.
Carter was pretty feckless but even Clinton mostly got it.
So while it's often tough to distinguish between center-left and right of center foreign policy because they have generally shared a basic agreement it's always been pretty easy to define a left wing one; putting our interests, at best, on an even footing with other countries, undermining our allies, apologizing for real and imagined US faults and appeasing and groveling before our enemies are just a few of its defining traits.
By these critieria Barry is clearly pursuing a foreign policy considerably to the left of anyone in the past, with the politcally expedient war in Afghanistan as the only substantial departure from this that comes readily to mind.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 17, 2010 at 10:21 AM
See LUN for an article that compares house raid procedures by police in the US with house raid procedures by our troops in Afghanistan. It appears as if our troops in Afghanistan are more restrained in their procedures than police in the US.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | May 17, 2010 at 10:23 AM
If Obama had no latitude to close Gitmo, why did he make the promise?
Because the promise is what will be remembered, whether it's closed or not.
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 17, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Captain, that link is a great example of the Dem. liars and the MSM idiots. We have GOT to get some media/reporters that KNOW something. When I know more about the Citizens United case than David Gregory...we are in sad shape.
Almost any JOM poster would at least ask better questions than our MSM...even us social types!
Posted by: Janet | May 17, 2010 at 10:25 AM
I would think CA would have a whine-a-minute club.
LOL!
Posted by: Janet | May 17, 2010 at 10:28 AM
--You[bb] obviously are a thoughtful individual...--
TC gets laugh line of the day and it's only 7:30 AM out here.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 17, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Thomas,
I saw a couple of links to websites of AZ products in the last couple of days. probably over at GatewayPundit where he had some excellent coverage of Jan Brewer and Sarah Palin here this weekend. If I see them again I'll link.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | May 17, 2010 at 10:33 AM
In support of my 10:21AM post is Jay Nordlinger at NRO on Barry's schlub apologizing to the ChiComs, the rapists of Tibet, for the AZ immigration law.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 17, 2010 at 10:37 AM
You obviously are a thoughtful individual
I think we can all agree that's as obvious as the center-right orientation of Obama's foreign policy.
Posted by: bgates | May 17, 2010 at 10:39 AM
When I know more about the Citizens United case than David Gregory...we are in sad shape.
Well, that's one of the reasons I post here and don't watch MTP. When looked at from a "glass half full" perpective: How bad off would we be if we couldn't discuss things here and had to depend on the MSM dummies solely for information?
To echo TC in his non-sports pronouncements: If bb would address things in a less snarky tone, I'd respond in kind.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 17, 2010 at 10:40 AM
A scandal brewing re an Obama-favored Chicago bank?? LUN
But Republican committee staffers point to the fact that Goldman Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein until late last week had declined to invest in ShoreBank, but then apparently had a change of heart and began calling other banking leaders to build support. Goldman's stake: $20 million. "Given the crap Blankfein has been taking, you have to wonder what happened between his saying no and then saying yes," says one Finance Committee staffer. "It's not like the deal suddenly got better. "
Posted by: SWarren | May 17, 2010 at 10:41 AM
I catch the more interesting bits of MTP, on references here through Jim Hoft,Newsbusters, and other sites, which I think constitute half the audience
Posted by: narciso | May 17, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Captain Hate, does your current ban on me posting updates on NBA playoff games also apply to 24 tonight? :-))
Posted by: Thomas Collins | May 17, 2010 at 10:50 AM
Wow; I'm not sure how I feel about this SC ruling (LUN although I'm not sure that non-WSJ subscribers can see it; let me know and I'll cut and paste) that sex offenders can be held beyond their prison terms. On the one hand, I'm not at all convinced that pervs can be rehabbed and effectively integrated back into society. On the other hand, I am much more nervous about the state being able to declare a *dangerous* class of criminal that shall be incarcerated beyond what the courts dictate.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 17, 2010 at 10:53 AM
OK, thanks, Bill in AZ. Ignatz, I am ever the optimist about snark poster transformation.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | May 17, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Not that my "ban" had any impact on what you did, but post away on 24 since I haven't watched it since they brought Janeane Godawfulfugly on the cast. I may eventually watch it on DVD, which I'm now doing with the first season of Alias, featuring the scrumptious Jennifer Garner before she completely lost what mind she may have had and married that idiot Ben Afflicted who should be eternally patrolling J-Lo's fat ass. I'd forgotten that Tarrantino had a guest appearance during the first season. Good times....
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 17, 2010 at 10:59 AM
As Janet says:
"Fine words over Hard Action."
Those 3 "thoughts" are in my quote book...I wrote down that they were from a book called The Siege of Western Civilization.
Posted by: Janet | May 17, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Alias was good before it got knee deep in the Rambaldi conundrum, and it became a little soap opery, I think SD-6 is really running the whole thing, is there a more logical explanation
Posted by: narciso | May 17, 2010 at 11:04 AM
Ha, I don't want to be a plagiarist like the Harvard profs!
Posted by: Janet | May 17, 2010 at 11:04 AM
There is an Arizona firms list posted by Hit and Run at 08:15 last evening if you haven't seen it.
Posted by: Pagar | May 17, 2010 at 11:04 AM
I agree, narciso; those shows seem to always reach a point where they have a choice between continuing in a way that insults the viewer's intelligence or shutting it down and they always opt for the former. I remember reading a Ludlum book on the beach decades ago and thinking "This is an embarrassment; I'm never reading crap again" and have pretty much adhered to that admonition.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 17, 2010 at 11:11 AM
And yes, SD-6 is responsible for the jugeared dunce; that explains everything.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 17, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Thanks, Pagar, I found H&R's list.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | May 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM
LUN is the Arizona travel and tourism guide from the governor's website.
Posted by: Janet | May 17, 2010 at 11:43 AM
I notice that PSE (Precision Shooting Equipment) Archery is not on that list. They are located in Tucson, and make great archery equipment. I found that my gun shooting skillz increased considerably after getting a bow, probably because I can shoot hundreds of "rounds" a week right in my backyard.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | May 17, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Buy a Ruger firearm. They have a castings
plant here in Prescott.
Posted by: raymondshaw | May 17, 2010 at 12:23 PM
I believe a program in the midwest took their case all the way to the Supreme Court about 10 years ago about keeping habitual sex offenders in treatment post incarceration. I believe they won, with the argument that the 'clients' were in rehabilatatory programs, though at the same time it was conceded that this was sometimes used on the unrehabilatatable, thus functionally constituting a life term. For sure, the worst of the worst, even when released, ended up in halfway houses or some other institutional monitoring scheme, even if they lived in a private house.
===================
Posted by: I am NAL and my memory renders me BANAL about all this. | May 17, 2010 at 02:30 PM
It was all very expensive, but found Constitutional, I think.
===========
Posted by: Free choice of the citizens of that state. | May 17, 2010 at 02:31 PM