• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Moore 0wns Bush. Again.

This is the part where you post a link or at least explain what the hell is going on. Some of us have to work and cant spend every waking moment on the internet... I'm workin' on it though!
\
EDIT: Ha... I'm an idjit...
 
That is funny, though I think it's taken totally out of context. He clearly seems to be talking about not being qualified to be a field agent, which doesn't mean he isn't qualified to be Head of Central Intelligence.
 
Click on smiley.
OK, I blocked off P&N. I posted it in OT, because I think it's funny.😉 I am not interested in a long P&N discussion that inevitably ends up with how it's all Clinton's fault. 😀
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
That is funny, though I think it's taken totally out of context. He clearly seems to be talking about not being qualified to be a field agent, which doesn't mean he isn't qualified to be Head of Central Intelligence.
Click to expand...

that's the impression i get from reading the article as well.
 
Originally posted by: amdfanboy
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
eh.... i wouldn't say moore is "owning" bush on this one.
Click to expand...

more like Goss owning himself
Click to expand...

:beer:
Click to expand...

people, read the freakin article! he's saying that he's not qualified to be an undercover agent in respect to the war or terror. he doesn't speak arabic languages, nor does he look like he comes from the area.

"We're looking for arabists today" <- straight from Goss's quote
 
Originally posted by: GeneValgene
Originally posted by: DonVito
That is funny, though I think it's taken totally out of context. He clearly seems to be talking about not being qualified to be a field agent, which doesn't mean he isn't qualified to be Head of Central Intelligence.
Click to expand...

that's the impression i get from reading the article as well.
Click to expand...

Me too... while I'd love to bash Bush.... in this case it's Moore and the OP who are morons.
 
He's in a position to run the organization, not be a field agent. That doesn't mean he's incapable of running things. He has decades of experience with how the CIA works. Does the CEO of a drug company need to know how to do lab chemistry in order to run the company well?

Besides, who is to say that interview is even accurate? Moore is WELL KNOWN for creating fake statements by piecing together bits and pieces of several different interviews and speeches.
 
Originally posted by: mjquilly
Originally posted by: amdfanboy
Originally posted by: TheBDB
Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
eh.... i wouldn't say moore is "owning" bush on this one.
Click to expand...

more like Goss owning himself
Click to expand...

:beer:
Click to expand...

people, read the freakin article! he's saying that he's not qualified to be an undercover agent in respect to the war or terror. he doesn't speak arabic languages, nor does he look like he comes from the area.

"We're looking for arabists today" <- straight from Goss's quote
Click to expand...

goss is not supposed to be an undercover agent in the war on terror. not to mention, the cia does NOT exist solely to combat the war on terror. i think its better to be generalized, not specialized, to be head of the cia.
 
SuperTool strikes again. Like everyone else has said, being a field agent and being the head of the CIA are two totally different things. Does he really need to be able to do advanced things on the computer, or speak Arabic? He's got a secretary and interpreters for that crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top